How the AFL’s ‘power’ clubs have lost power

[SimpkinByTheDockOfTheBay]

Great piece by Jake Niall here.

How the AFL’s ‘power’ clubs have lost power

We still call the clubs with the most supporters and dollars “power clubs” but that term is becoming a misnomer in an AFL competition that has increasingly concentrated power.

www.theage.com.au

Basically its a summation of my posts on this forum over the journey lol.

 

[adammania9]

Basically its a summation of my posts on this forum over the journey lol.

Give yourself a nice pat on the back

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Do you think this is a good thing? Bring the big down to the small? Not sure that ever works long term.
AFL clubs have virtually no fiscal responsibility now, doesn’t matter what happens the AFL will fund them.
Long term it will lead to a breakaway, people are kidding themselves thinking this will last. Money will win out.

 

[SimpkinByTheDockOfTheBay]

Give yourself a nice pat on the back

Feel free to send me a gift.

 

[SimpkinByTheDockOfTheBay]

Do you think this is a good thing? Bring the big down to the small?
AFL clubs have virtually no fiscal responsibility now, doesn’t matter what happens the AFL will fund them.
Long term it will lead to a breakaway, people are kidding themselves thinking this will last. Money will win out.

LOL.

Its a good thing - Dees, Dogs and even though they're going to hate this, it is true as Jake points out, Richmond, were all small/struggling Melbourne clubs in 2010 when equalisation really kicked in, now all have won flags.

Fiscal responsibility - Wrong, factually demonstrably wrong, equalisation has CREATED far better fiscal responsibility by its existence ... you want AFL help, you submit to their rules. Its meant the small Melbourne clubs have all paid their debts off, bar St Kilda who seem to be in the process of doing so.

Breakaway - will never happen, you are deluded and kidding yourself and living in a fantasyland of about 2001. The Eagles signed up to play in a Victorian run comp that plays a Victorian sport. Fact. Cop it sweet and stoip sooking.

 

[Kwality]

The AFL administration will be pleased, they can appease the Vic bloc without being questioned.

 

[SimpkinByTheDockOfTheBay]

Jake must have been reading this:

What tangible onfield benefit do big rich clubs get from being big and rich these days?

Essendon's planned upgrade to Windy Hill uses the same model as the Dogs and North have used/are using to get the Western Oval and Arden Street upgraded. Leverage community links/access and the AFLW team for a major injection of taxpayer funds. Which begs the question as to what real...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[EBERT THE KING]

Do you think this is a good thing? Bring the big down to the small? Not sure that ever works long term.
AFL clubs have virtually no fiscal responsibility now, doesn’t matter what happens the AFL will fund them.
Long term it will lead to a breakaway, people are kidding themselves thinking this will last. Money will win out.

Very good point this.

I personally think a 19th licence is a recipe for disaster, and this will mean that fiscal responsibility will need to reemerge, as there will be immeidate push for a 20th to get 10 games a week.

I feel as though it applies for some clubs and not others. North and Port Adelaide are great examples of clubs turning things around off field, yet GWS and GCS are continually propped up by the AFL. Its a scary situation.

 

[Kwality]

Fiscal responsibility - Wrong, factually demonstrably wrong, equalisation has CREATED far better fiscal responsibility by its existence ... you want AFL help, you submit to their rules. Its meant the small Melbourne clubs have all paid their debts off, bar St Kilda who seem to be in the process of doing so.

Gospel to the faithful, the AFL are paying off club debt not the clubs themselves.

 

[jwikked]

Do you think this is a good thing? Bring the big down to the small? Not sure that ever works long term.
AFL clubs have virtually no fiscal responsibility now, doesn’t matter what happens the AFL will fund them.
Long term it will lead to a breakaway, people are kidding themselves thinking this will last. Money will win out.

The fixture is unfair. The stadium deals are unfair.

Or do you propose the AFL does nothing to address any of this and just lets half the competition die?
When the same teams get the same marquee games year on year, how are the teams left without meant to make up the difference?
When some teams get shafted with bad stadium deals, with terrible zoning laws and untelevised matches on Sundays, how do they make up the difference?

The only solution is a truly random draw with some caveats - no team plays each other more than twice. No more marquee games set in stone, give every team equal access to the FTA broadcast. Have a cap on stadium attendance, why should the MCG tenants be allowed to make more money than Gold Coast simply because their stadium has higher capacity?

It's not about bringing down the big clubs, it's about helping create a more equal competition. Isn't this preferable to the alternative?

 

[Pessimistic]

West coast have their own crypto printing ar,]m, but hawthorn geelong Collingwood were fiscally challenged in the late nineties. Good to see them now the most viable, only Collingwood known for big game attendances up till then

 

[Kwality]

Very good point this.

I personally think a 19th licence is a recipe for disaster, and this will mean that fiscal responsibility will need to reemerge, as there will be immeidate push for a 20th to get 10 games a week.

I feel as though it applies for some clubs and not others. North and Port Adelaide are great examples of clubs turning things around off field, yet GWS and GCS are continually propped up by the AFL. Its a scary situation.

100 year old clubs in footy heartland, clubs that know the benefit of success ($s) versus new clubs set up in 'enemy territory' (NRL) with none of the benefits that heartland has. Freo has battled for success too & made plenty of mistakes in a heartland environment.

IMHO, adding more clubs has been a reaction rather than a well planned strategy, see the North to the Gold Coast example.

I share your concern over the creation of more clubs & the consequences of that strategy.

 

[Kappa]

Surely it’s time to move st kilda to tassie

 

[EBERT THE KING]

100 year old clubs in footy heartland, clubs that know the benefit of success ($s) versus new clubs set up in 'enemy territory' (NRL) with none of the benefits that heartland has. Freo has battled for success too & made plenty of mistakes in a heartland environment.

IMHO, adding more clubs has been a reaction rather than a well planned strategy, see the North to the Gold Coast example.

I share your concern over the creation of more clubs & the consequences of that strategy.

Well said.

It has been reactionary. I understand the want for a team on the gold coast, but after North rejected the move, it needed to be reassessed and it wasn't.

There is next to no doubt that if Tasmania had been brought in to the competition, in place of the Gold Coast Suns, the funding would not have had to be at the same level. I would imagine maybe 50% of the funding would have been saved.

They will struggle for market share against SEQ NRL clubs, with another joining in 2023.

 

[SimpkinByTheDockOfTheBay]

Very good point this.

I personally think a 19th licence is a recipe for disaster, and this will mean that fiscal responsibility will need to reemerge, as there will be immeidate push for a 20th to get 10 games a week.

I feel as though it applies for some clubs and not others. North and Port Adelaide are great examples of clubs turning things around off field, yet GWS and GCS are continually propped up by the AFL. Its a scary situation.

Costs of expansion.

As the article points out though, clubs aren't going to allows a Tassie licence on that model.

Tassie Govt will need to pay for it.

 

[SimpkinByTheDockOfTheBay]

The AFL administration will be pleased, they can appease the Vic bloc without being questioned.

Yeah, the people who literally invented the game, represent a majority of clubs, vast majority of support and built all the infrastructure that allowed teams from other states to join.

 

[SimpkinByTheDockOfTheBay]

Gospel to the faithful, the AFL are paying off club debt not the clubs themselves.

North members literally paid extra on their memberships for years and years for pay off our debt.

Dogs and Dees and Tiges all did similar/held big fundraisers etc. Saints doing it now.

I'm amazed you have such a free market worldview of footy, given how often you're publicly owned on the subject.

 

[Pessimistic]

Costs of expansion.

As the article points out though, clubs aren't going to allows a Tassie licence on that model.

Tassie Govt will need to pay for it.

They may, but the funding of North and Hawthorn will be redirected, so how much 'extra' money?

 

[SimpkinByTheDockOfTheBay]

They may, but the funding of North and Hawthorn will be redirected, so how much 'extra' money?

Yeah, they'll need to cough up more than what they pay us combined.

 

[SimpkinByTheDockOfTheBay]

Surely it’s time to move st kilda to tassie

They were in a precarious possie 12-24 months ago, but seem to be rapidly paying down their debt, so should be fine.

 

[jwikked]

They were in a precarious possie 12-24 months ago, but seem to be rapidly paying down their debt, so should be fine.

That's not true. Our debt wasn't as bad as the media painted it to be. It was easily serviced, with assets to back it up. We've got debt with something to show for it, unlike some clubs that have no debt but nothing to show.

 

[Kappa]

That's not true. Our debt wasn't as bad as the media painted it to be. It was easily serviced, with assets to back it up. We've got debt with something to show for it, unlike some clubs that have no debt but nothing to show.

Would u survive without ludicrous afl financial support?

 

[jwikked]

Would u survive without ludicrous afl financial support?

Most clubs wouldn't. Don't forget the value the AFL has from having 18 teams in the competition, those broadcast rights aren't worth as much in a 14 team competition.

Don't forget, St Kilda aren't gifted the Queens Birthday marquee game. The Anzac Day game. Collingwood play at the MCG which treats its tenants far better than Marvel Stadium did for the 20 years it wasn't owned by the AFL.
All these things add up to an uneven competition. Expecting clubs to flounder on their own when the AFL is running a clearly unfair fixture is stupid.

 

[SimpkinByTheDockOfTheBay]

That's not true. Our debt wasn't as bad as the media painted it to be. It was easily serviced, with assets to back it up. We've got debt with something to show for it, unlike some clubs that have no debt but nothing to show.

Yep, but perception is everything in AFL land.

Niall puts it well:

At club level, there is more noise about the massive funding of St Kilda - nearly $17 million more the next Victorian club over the decade, despite a larger fan base than the Dogs or North - than the dollars pumped into GWS and the Suns. Having reduced their debt, the Saints should be preparing for a much less generous package.

 

[SimpkinByTheDockOfTheBay]

Would u survive without ludicrous afl financial support?

They did more than any other club to pay off Marvel, which the AFL could use as a financial guarantor when the s**t hit the fan in 2020.