Geelong post a $3 million loss

[Kwality]

And you forgot to mention Etihad is s**t, badly designed, subject to foot traffic gridlock, and with rubbish food.

Isnt it about the footy or is it the number of games in Melbourne that allows followers to pick & choose? Is Subi really worse?

 

[Seeds]

Can you please explain how Collngwood and Hawthorn are "favoured" by paying the MOST TAX ?

That's the most insane thing I've ever heard…

The only "amateurish" thing about this league is that we have half a dozen clubs who are living hand-to-mouth. If you want to point the finger at anyone, then blame the AFL. They're the ones who are raking in billions and doling out the scraps to the shareholder clubs and playing their usual game of "divide and conquer". Don't point the finger at the AFL's two model Victorian clubs who can stand on their own two feet.

Cos its capped. Even if it wasn't capped you could argue they still aren't paying enough. In real life as people's income go up they pay higher rates of marginal tax. With the cap not only are the Hawks and pies not paying a higher marginal tax, they in fact are paying a lower marginal tax on higher net income. that's utterly insane and effectively corruption.

 

[TropperFarquhar]

Cos its capped. Even if it wasn't capped you could argue they still aren't paying enough. In real life as people's income go up they pay higher rates of marginal tax. With the cap not only are the Hawks and pies not paying a higher marginal tax, they in fact are paying a lower marginal tax on higher net income. that's utterly insane and effectively corruption.

In real life, tax is capped if you reach a certain level.

 

[Back One Out]

Cos its capped. Even if it wasn't capped you could argue they still aren't paying enough. In real life as people's income go up they pay higher rates of marginal tax.

Yeah, I understand that….. but why should clubs pay any 'equalisation' tax?

With the cap not only are the Hawks and pies not paying a higher marginal tax, they in fact are paying a lower marginal tax on higher net income. that's utterly insane and effectively corruption.

Get your hand off it.

Collingwood and Hawthorn should not have to fund the poorest clubs

We're not responsible for the shitty situation at Etihad Stadium. If the other 9 Victorian clubs had listened to Hawthorn back in 1997-98 instead of being short-sighted greedy arsewipes, we'd still have a 75,000 seat stadium in the demographic centre of Greater Melbourne.

 

[JUBJUB]

Geelong is the only side lucky enough to get a home stadium in Victoria, all other clubs supporters travel from all over the state
Deal with it

and Geelong supporters don't travel from all over the state ?
I know of people that travel from the Goulburn Valley [250 odd kms] area and people from Traralgon [a lazy 230 odd kms] who regurlaly attend games at Geelong and poor Melbourne fans can't travel an extra 10 minutes across the city.

 

[Boxhead_31]

Can you please explain how Collngwood and Hawthorn are "favoured" by paying the MOST TAX ?

That's the most insane thing I've ever heard…

The only "amateurish" thing about this league is that we have half a dozen clubs who are living hand-to-mouth. If you want to point the finger at anyone, then blame the AFL. They're the ones who are raking in billions and doling out the scraps to the shareholder clubs and playing their usual game of "divide and conquer". Don't point the finger at the AFL's two model Victorian clubs who can stand on their own two feet.

Hawthorn make a 3 mill profit pay 500k, Geelong make a 3 million loss pay 300k does that sound like a fair an equitable system to you?
If the system was implemented as it was proposed prior to the fact finding mission Hawthorn would be paying a far higher amount but Eddie and Andrew were able to bring a cap in that saw the amount their teams would have to pay greatly limited

 

[Back One Out]

Hawthorn make a 3 mill profit pay 500k, Geelong make a 3 million loss pay 300k does that sound like a fair an equitable system to you?
If the system was implemented as it was proposed prior to the fact finding mission Hawthorn would be paying a far higher amount but Eddie and Andrew were able to bring a cap in that saw the amount their teams would have to pay greatly limited

No, it's not fair that Hawthorn have to give $500,000 of their hard-earned cash to our competitors

It's unfair that Hawthorn have to give $200,000 more than Geelong.

I would feel less strongly about this if the AFL gave us the same fixture as Collingwood with 15 MCG games (including 6 home & away matches at the MCG every year vs Carl/Ess/Rich)

 

[TropperFarquhar]

Hawthorn make a 3 mill profit pay 500k, Geelong make a 3 million loss pay 300k does that sound like a fair an equitable system to you?
If the system was implemented as it was proposed prior to the fact finding mission Hawthorn would be paying a far higher amount but Eddie and Andrew were able to bring a cap in that saw the amount their teams would have to pay greatly limited

The person who designed the tax was Geelong chairman, Colin Carter.

The tax isn't based on profits and non football revenue.

It's based on how much you spend on football operations.

If you feel aggrieved about paying a tax, lower your spend on football operations.

 

[Kwality]

Hawthorn make a 3 mill profit pay 500k, Geelong make a 3 million loss pay 300k does that sound like a fair an equitable system to you?
If the system was implemented as it was proposed prior to the fact finding mission Hawthorn would be paying a far higher amount but Eddie and Andrew were able to bring a cap in that saw the amount their teams would have to pay greatly limited

Is this an informed view or are you only looking at the amount paid?
How the tax is calculated - it can be minimised/eliminated?
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-06-04/equalisation-changes-explained

 

[Topkent]

and Geelong supporters don't travel from all over the state ?
I know of people that travel from the Goulburn Valley [250 odd kms] area and people from Traralgon [a lazy 230 odd kms] who regurlaly attend games at Geelong and poor Melbourne fans can't travel an extra 10 minutes across the city.

[/QUOTE

Once again you missed the point, its not about melbourne its the idea that your supporters are using the extra 40kms as a hardship
Nice so how about rewarding your fans from Traralgon and Goulbourn Valley with a game at the G

 

[The 747]

Isnt it about the footy or is it the number of games in Melbourne that allows followers to pick & choose? Is Subi really worse?

Hmmm Etihad loses I suspect when it's a marginal call ie maybe going. It is of course different to the West when there is demand far outstripping supply.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

The person who designed the tax was Geelong chairman, Colin Carter.

The tax isn't based on profits and non football revenue.

It's based on how much you spend on football operations.

If you feel aggrieved about paying a tax, lower your spend on football operations.

Exactly. These teams are getting taxed for spendings, not revenue. So they spend more of their own cash on their football department and then spend more of their own cash BECAUSE they spend more of their own cash.

You could feasibly have one of the lower revenue totals but pay the most tax if you overspend on your football department.

Carlton too lost money hand over fist the last two years and have had to pay the spending tax to add to our misery.

 

[Stucky]

Why don't we just up our pokie machines to 20,000 and call ourselves the family club like Hawthorn?

 

[JackFlash]

http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au...t/news-story/5c5c5a304146261bf46775e6aa156450

Considering the ground is once again torn in half a loss was expected, other circumstances contribute to a greater than anticipated loss, but Cook doesn't appear worried and that's good enough for me, membership is well up, on field prospects look good.

Cook said it was “crazy” the club was forced to contribute $300,000 to the AFL’s equalisation funding pool in 2015 and a further $390,000 in 2016, even though it had reported losses while some of the clubs that received the funding would record profits.

“Our club has long supported equalisation, however we feel the current methodology around the amounts each club is required to contribute is flawed and requires review,” he said.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Cook said it was “crazy” the club was forced to contribute $300,000 to the AFL’s equalisation funding pool in 2015 and a further $390,000 in 2016, even though it had reported losses while some of the clubs that received the funding would record profits.

I hear that. Same for Carlton. We spent more and pay the tax and make huge losses which the tax contributes to.

Seems you could limit your spending and cash in with free money as well.

 

[TropperFarquhar]

Why is Cook complaining?

The P/L is irrelevant to the football department tax. If you are worried about posting a loss, cut the amount you spend on your football department and your profit or loss can be altered. You shouldn't be having a high football department spend if you are unable to fund it without taking a loss.

I'm certain Hawthorn and Collingwood are taking a big hit to their P/L by paying the equalisation tax.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Cos its capped. Even if it wasn't capped you could argue they still aren't paying enough. In real life as people's income go up they pay higher rates of marginal tax. With the cap not only are the Hawks and pies not paying a higher marginal tax, they in fact are paying a lower marginal tax on higher net income. that's utterly insane and effectively corruption.

It's a regressive tax and it's the middle clubs who are worst off.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

If you are worried about posting a loss, cut the amount you spend on your football department and your profit or loss can be altered. You shouldn't be having a high football department spend if you are unable to fund it without taking a loss.

I don't know. Getting qualified staff costs more when you are not as attractive a destination. In Carlton's case, we had to completely restructure our football department and bring in more people to help us on field.

People will point to the sacking of coaches but that money was going to be paid whether Malthouse stayed or not. It's only Barker's top up as caretaker (if any) that affected our bottom line.

 

[dean31]

Away games we can play wherever. DGAF about away games…. thats why they are AWAY games…

9 home games at KP and 2 at MCG is fine.

And one of the KP games each year needs to be against a "big 4"…
In other words, once every 4 years Pies, Blues, Hawks, Bombers play an away game at KP.

Really too much to ask?

As for the equalization tax, happy to contribute to the fund in a proportional sense that is even across the competition. If you think that 500k on 5.2 million profit and 300k on 3.2 million loss is proportional then you can't be helped.



GO Catters

The equalisation is even across the competition. It has nothing to do with the revenue made it is based off football department spending. The AFL set a limit, if clubs choose to spend over that limit in running their club they pay equalisation tax.
Geelong chose to go over and they paid 300K, Hawks chose to go over by more and they paid 1.3 million. Again nothing to do with how much money a club has made in revenue.

 

[JackFlash]

Why is Cook complaining?

The P/L is irrelevant to the football department tax. If you are worried about posting a loss, cut the amount you spend on your football department and your profit or loss can be altered. You shouldn't be having a high football department spend if you are unable to fund it without taking a loss.

I'm certain Hawthorn and Collingwood are taking a big hit to their P/L by paying the equalisation tax.

They play at the MCG in front of 60K plus crowds and that encourages membership

Collingwood ave attendance 2015 47259
Hawthorn ave attendance 2015 38626 * Tassie games

 

[dazbroncos]

You want Melb home games then you should get Etihad home games. Why should you be any different to the rest of the AFL?

We have no deal to play at Etihad in force. No signed deal to play home games there. No buy out of for Nothing. So why should we?

None.

And our two MCG games generally v Hawks and Pies draw, on average, more than the Etihad gate.

And then WC, AFC, BL, GC can play home games there too then right?

Go Catters

 

[The Jet From Poowong]

The equalisation is even across the competition. It has nothing to do with the revenue made it is based off football department spending. The AFL set a limit, if clubs choose to spend over that limit in running their club they pay equalisation tax.
Geelong chose to go over and they paid 300K, Hawks chose to go over by more and they paid 1.3 million. Again nothing to do with how much money a club has made in revenue.

I was wondering how long it would take before the real figure was mentioned. Hawthorn pays more than 1 million more into the AFL kitty and the cats complain about 300k

 

[Kwality]

http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au...t/news-story/5c5c5a304146261bf46775e6aa156450

Considering the ground is once again torn in half a loss was expected, other circumstances contribute to a greater than anticipated loss, but Cook doesn't appear worried and that's good enough for me, membership is well up, on field prospects look good.

Cook said it was “crazy” the club was forced to contribute $300,000 to the AFL’s equalisation funding pool in 2015 and a further $390,000 in 2016, even though it had reported losses while some of the clubs that received the funding would record profits.

“Our club has long supported equalisation, however we feel the current methodology around the amounts each club is required to contribute is flawed and requires review,” he said.

How would you find the money Jack?

 

[Kwality]

I don't know. Getting qualified staff costs more when you are not as attractive a destination. In Carlton's case, we had to completely restructure our football department and bring in more people to help us on field.

People will point to the sacking of coaches but that money was going to be paid whether Malthouse stayed or not. It's only Barker's top up as caretaker (if any) that affected our bottom line.

How does the CEOs salary compare? Silvagni?

 

[The 747]

I was wondering how long it would take before the real figure was mentioned. Hawthorn pays more than 1 million more into the AFL kitty and the cats complain about 300k

So you hand on some of the taxpayers money from Tasmania to the whole AFL?