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

[Mat Mann]

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.

that's the easy take.

but the AFL deliberately pumped the tyres on the big clubs directly at the expense of those smaller clubs, you cant gift some clubs 13 standalone FTA games a year and others 1 game in 2 years and expect parity. sponsors, membership, merchandise, gate returns, such a self-sustaining circle is created that those clubs left out have such a harder time keeping up let alone catching up.

yes it is a little alarming to see those figures in totality, but break them down a little
in 2011 Nettlefold said Docklands cost the Saint 2.5m a year compared to MCG multiply that by 15 years - $37.5m (the 2019 ALF owned deal added an est. extra 2.2m into Saints coffers annually)
Saints had a decent initial contract at Docklands, which lasted only its initial term, then Dogs, North and Saint defaulted to an AFL agreed( with Stadium) deal
then on top of that factor in the AFL's fixturing policy ( the one where the big clubs got all the FTA and Primetime) and imagine how much less money those smaller clubs got from sponsors, membership, merchandise, gate returns. say conservatively $1m pa. for 10 years

we're at $50m already

until those number Jake quotes are broken down further into compensation for stadium deals and unequal fixturing then they are merely just that, a huge number without any reference.

 

[master bate]

The real shame is it's still seen as club vs league, when the real battle that should be worth fighting is fans v the league and the clubs ripping us off.

The league continues to implement more unfriendly fixture times for fans of all teams - big and small.

The sponsors logos are growing.

The types of sponsorships - gambling, crypto - are not heading in a good direction.

The access to players and the genuine club feel isn't going in the right direction.

Player wages are capped. Footy department spending is capped. The broadcast deal is massive.

Sure, spread the money between the clubs in an equitable way. But at some stage everyone needs to make sure the fans are actually getting looked after properly.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

that's the easy take.

but the AFL deliberately pumped the tyres on the big clubs directly at the expense of those smaller clubs, you cant gift some clubs 13 standalone FTA games a year and others 1 game in 2 years and expect parity. sponsors, membership, merchandise, gate returns, such a self-sustaining circle is created that those clubs left out have such a harder time keeping up let alone catching up.

yes it is a little alarming to see those figures in totality, but break them down a little
in 2011 Nettlefold said Docklands cost the Saint 2.5m a year compared to MCG multiply that by 15 years - $37.5m (the 2019 ALF owned deal added an est. extra 2.2m into Saints coffers annually)
Saints had a decent initial contract at Docklands, which lasted only its initial term, then Dogs, North and Saint defaulted to an AFL agreed( with Stadium) deal
then on top of that factor in the AFL's fixturing policy ( the one where the big clubs got all the FTA and Primetime) and imagine how much less money those smaller clubs got from sponsors, membership, merchandise, gate returns. say conservatively $1m pa. for 10 years

we're at $50m already

until those number Jake quotes are broken down further into compensation for stadium deals and unequal fixturing then they are merely just that, a huge number with any reference.

Exactly and the fixturing has a compounding effect over 30 years since the AFLs crowd maximisation policies commenced in the early 90s. Those club's have been hamstrung short term financially but also long term in regards to being unable to grow their brand, their supporter base, their sponsorship value. And this in a time when AFL, sponsorship and membership numbers and revenue have increased exponentially. It's a legacy issue same as the teams who built themselves up with sustained success due to being favoured when the recruitment zones were allocated and never rotated as they were initially meant to be. This allowed the strong to consolidate their strength duribg the time when TV broadcast/exposure was taking off and then further again in the 30 years since the 90s when they benefited from AFL policies to focus on crowd/revenue maximisation.

It's a perpetual cycle of disadvantage that the equalisation funding was put in place to help combat but was never going to be sufficient compensation especially knowing that it all rested on the whim of an AFL Commission and politically motivated club's leaning on that Commission and their mates in the media to shift public sentiment.

 

[Pessimistic]

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

in return they get 10-11 game events instead of 8.

on average the opponent would be half from melbourne and half from other states.

The funding is based as seed money for footy based tourism. the five groups would be bigger than the current potential visitors

 

[Kwality]

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?

The stadium deals are unfair .... some State/local Governments assist their local clubs, others dont. Do you suggest the worst stadium deal becomes the norm or that best deal as defined (by whom) is subsidised to all other clubs.
At the same time I guess you need to equalise crowds & adjust crowd involvement to ensure no club gains a benefit from passionate support.

The biggest advantage/disadvantage is heartland support, how would you adjust that?
FTA for all, who picks up the cost, Pollyana tosses in the money lost from Foxtel. Good girl !

I understand how the lowest common denominator appeals to many, how some club members pay more than others etc, how some teams travel & others dont, let alone consider it fair that some clubs can offer 17 game memberships & others cant ...

 

[hawkman]

in return they get 10-11 game events instead of 8.

on average the opponent would be half from melbourne and half from other states.

The funding is based as seed money for footy based tourism. the five groups would be bigger than the current potential visitors

If Tassie has their own team, the stadiums will likely be filled up with people from Tassie

 

[Underarm]

Surely it’s time to move st kilda to tassie

Hobart Magpies has a nice ring to it.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

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.

How was I sooking, what would I have to sook about. I support one of the very few clubs in the AFL has big boy pants on and can actually support itself.
I do admire you Vics though that actually think everything will just stay the same forever.
Look what money has done to the sport the last 30 years, if you can’t see what it will do in the next 30-50 and don’t think that it will be any different then it is you that will be copping it sweet. Money will not let fairness, clubs etc or anything else stand in its path. players and management are not loyal now to clubs, how do you really reckon things will go in the future.
Sorry champ but it is you that is not just loving in a fantasy, but you actually think the fantasy will last forever.

 

[juss]

There's really no need to be a financially self viable club or dig yourself out of your own hole anymore. The AFL has put a ceiling on the clubs that could afford to spend more so its not really viable and if you're struggling will just foot the bill with extra assistance.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

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.

Clubs can all survive, they just don’t have to be all equal. The salary cap floor should be reduced to 70%. Clubs should be spending what they afford only.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

There's really no need to be a financially self viable club or dig yourself out of your own hole anymore. The AFL has put a ceiling on the clubs that could afford to spend more so its not really viable and if you're struggling will just foot the bill with extra assistance.

Yep it’s so funny, every single sporting club outside of the AFL has to work hard , balance it’s books, fund raise etc etc. yet the AFL clubs can sign up to crap stadium deals that lose their club money, lose money yearly etc etc and that’s all ok.
Great example the AFL set. Spend more than you have and we will ask your opposition to cover it. Great system that is. Lol

 

[Enviable Tradition]

Yep it’s so funny, every single sporting club outside of the AFL has to work hard , balance it’s books, fund raise etc etc. yet the AFL clubs can sign up to crap stadium deals that lose their club money, lose money yearly etc etc and that’s all ok.
Great example the AFL set. Spend more than you have and we will ask your opposition to cover it. Great system that is. Lol

The AFL sold our license to the SANFL instead of us which lead them to leach money off of us for years rather than become AFLSA and get AFL funding like the VFL did.

It also meant we were over a barrel when it came to negotiating stadium deals including the new deal at Adelaide Oval.

At the time of the new stadium the AFL them took over our license themselves and now control our board.

Tell us again how we signed up to s**t stadium deals and arrangements that lost us money.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

The AFL sold our license to the SANFL instead of us which lead them to leach money off of us for years rather than become AFLSA and get AFL funding like the VFL did.

It also meant we were over a barrel when it came to negotiating stadium deals including the new deal at Adelaide Oval.

At the time of the new stadium the AFL them took over our license themselves and now control our board.

Tell us again how we signed up to sh*t stadium deals and arrangements that lost us money.

Every decision your club has made has been to the benefit of others. You should of said no. This is what no one accepts, yes you might not be in the comp by saying no I get that but either way your club accepted the terms. You were to busy trying to get one up on all your other SANFL clubs that you forgot to look at the fine print.
You signed up for it. It may not of been what you wanted but you still accepted it.

 

[jwikked]

Clubs can all survive, they just don’t have to be all equal. The salary cap floor should be reduced to 70%. Clubs should be spending what they afford only.

So you'd end up with the same 3 teams winning the Premiership year on year. How great would that be?

 

[Demonic Ascent]

The stadium deals are unfair .... some State/local Governments assist their local clubs, others dont. Do you suggest the worst stadium deal becomes the norm or that best deal as defined (by whom) is subsidised to all other clubs.
At the same time I guess you need to equalise crowds & adjust crowd involvement to ensure no club gains a benefit from passionate support.

The biggest advantage/disadvantage is heartland support, how would you adjust that?
FTA for all, who picks up the cost, Pollyana tosses in the money lost from Foxtel. Good girl !

I understand how the lowest common denominator appeals to many, how some club members pay more than others etc, how some teams travel & others dont, let alone consider it fair that some clubs can offer 17 game memberships & others cant ...

And some club's get 22 games on FTA vs one or two for others. How much money have WA/SA fans contributed to the ever growing media rights deals when they don't have to pay Foxtel subs to watch their teams play?

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Yep it’s so funny, every single sporting club outside of the AFL has to work hard , balance it’s books, fund raise etc etc. yet the AFL clubs can sign up to crap stadium deals that lose their club money, lose money yearly etc etc and that’s all ok.
Great example the AFL set. Spend more than you have and we will ask your opposition to cover it. Great system that is. Lol

You've been told in other threads the club's had no power to negotiate better stadium deals and the AFL had deals with stadiums to play certain numbers of games there and the AFL sets the fixture as to who plays where. The club's had no say in the deals they received from the stadiums and you know this.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

When this current model of funding was developed in 2011/12 the AFL asked the club's for submissions around equalisation. As far as I know only the submissions from Geelong and Footscray were made public. I wrote to the MFC at the time requesting a copy of theirs as a 30 year member and got nowhere. I would be very interested to see the club responses and what was adopted and what wasn't.

The AFL has been "encouraging" club's to get out of pokies. They won't do that on the one hand and then refuse to help club's financially on the other. The AFL has been working with club's to get their finances right and these finances are a legacy from the financial issues of the 1980s. North only just recently became debt free after how long? This is long term strategy to ensure the strength of all constituent club's moving forward, cherry picking details over a 5-10 year period is short sighted in the extreme when the AFL is looking at the long term sustainability of all club's and ensuring proper governance rather than club's needing constant bailouts. Remember the AFL is the administrator, they don't actually make any money really, it is driven by the club's. Each club has at minimum a 1/18th stake in the media rights, in the league assets such as Docklands. Quibbling over a couple of million here or there each year when taking into account the inequitable policies of the league towards club's is farcical.

 

[Bjo187]

Getting rid of the pokies seems like a bad idea, nrl clubs basically live off their pokies venues and sports betting is all over the afl anyway, what's the difference. I do think there is zero incentive for the big clubs to be profitable anymore, interesting gill is a St Kilda fan and they have recieved the most funding out of any Victorian team by a staggering amount.

 

[Scotland]

And some club's get 22 games on FTA vs one or two for others. How much money have WA/SA fans contributed to the ever growing media rights deals when they don't have to pay Foxtel subs to watch their teams play?

Channel 7 Perth (and Adelaide) choose to broadcast Foxtel games involving WA (or SA) sides over the nationally scheduled FTA game to suit the local market. How that works commercially I don't know. Now that Foxtel simulcast FTA games there are no blackouts, so if you live in Perth you can see most WC/Freo games live on FTA TV, all WC/Freo games on FTA TV eventually and all games except the GF live on Foxtel/Kayo. In NSW/Qld all games involving teams from those states are shuffled onto 7Mate and no one cares.

Are you advocating that the same model be introduced in Victoria? Because that would just lead to the same handful of clubs being on FTA all the time. Or are you advocating that Channel 7 Perth be forced to broadcast Sydney vs Brisbane because it's the nationally scheduled FTA game over a Western Derby that would get 10x the viewership?

You've been told in other threads the club's had no power to negotiate better stadium deals and the AFL had deals with stadiums to play certain numbers of games there and the AFL sets the fixture as to who plays where. The club's had no say in the deals they received from the stadiums and you know this.

Most people that say 'stadium deals' have a poor understanding of stadium economics. Geelong arguably have the best stadium deal in the AFL because they don't generate that much revenue but their profit margin is high. With the cost of doing business of that being the club is based in Geelong. I don't see any Melbourne club pitching to relocate to Geelong or another regional centre. They (Geelong) don't make as much money as we do but their margin is higher. We could jump up and down that we don't get the same margin, but then we play in a brand new stadium that is bigger and better than Kardinia Park and that comes at a cost. The reason we make more is that we get bigger crowds and have higher ticket prices and membership fees. And that is because of demand. And that demand is driven by there being 2 teams in Perth not 9 and our fans being willing to financially contribute to seeing our team (and just our team) play on a regular basis. Playing Gold Coast on a Sunday isn't a death sentence.

For whatever reason Victorian fans don't support their teams the same way. As a Dees fan under normal circumstances you can attend 11 home games (9 with the NT deal) and half a dozen or so away games with some of those at your home ground. How many attend all 11? Or all say 15 at the G, or 17 in Victoria? We get 11 + 1. 2018 (the last normal year for crowds when you were strong) your home crowds ranged from 23k to 85k. Ours from 47k to 58k. If you are banking on opposition fans for your bottom line then it's apples and oranges. You're a 30 member and that's great (ignoring that most of the last 30 years have been less great) but for financial stability year to year clubs need a lot of long term members not just fans turning up to the odd event game.

Ultimately it ends up in a circular argument of people attempting to rationalise how much money they think clubs should be making from memberships and ticket sales on the basis of getting a larger share of a smaller revenue stream because reasons. If 23k people turn up to watch Melbourne play one week and then 85k (mostly Pies fans) turn up because it's Queen's Birthday what relevance does that have to another team who have 50k reserved seats sold for every game before the season starts?

I mean I went to the AFL GF last year and it cost me $450 so on that basis I'm glad it was a once off. I also went to the A-League GF in 2019 and it cost me about $30. I don't know where all the money goes from these events (into Gil's pocket no doubt) but there's a hell of a lot more to divvy up from a full house of people mostly paying $450 a head compared to $30 or $40. No stadium deal argument is ever whole without a revenue side.

 

[Freomaniac]

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

So you're saying Saints and North save the AFL from being broke?

Even though north was getting around 15,000 people in a 55,000 seat Docklands?

 

[SimpkinByTheDockOfTheBay]

How was I sooking, what would I have to sook about. I support one of the very few clubs in the AFL has big boy pants on and can actually support itself.
I do admire you Vics though that actually think everything will just stay the same forever.
Look what money has done to the sport the last 30 years, if you can’t see what it will do in the next 30-50 and don’t think that it will be any different then it is you that will be copping it sweet. Money will not let fairness, clubs etc or anything else stand in its path. players and management are not loyal now to clubs, how do you really reckon things will go in the future.
Sorry champ but it is you that is not just loving in a fantasy, but you actually think the fantasy will last forever.

Yes, the AFLs going to overturn its hugely successful equalisation model because of some sub Gina Rinehart poetry.

 

[Papa G]

The AFLs biggest issue is the corruption of the MCG/Victorian State Government running the comp. Putin has less control and influence over the Russian Premier Liga. Disgraceful.

 

[Achy Blakey Heart]

When the 'Big" Melbourne clubs wern't winning flags early this century the AFL shat itself and held an inquiry to make sure this didn't continue. Interstate clubs are now not winning flags....but that's quite ok by the AFL.

 

[SimpkinByTheDockOfTheBay]

The AFLs biggest issue is the corruption of the MCG/Victorian State Government running the comp. Putin has less control and influence over the Russian Premier Liga. Disgraceful.

Leaving aside your shockingly offensive comparison with Putin when UKR is having its cities levelled ... stop sooking.

Footy is a Victorian game. It was developed in the Colony of Victoria ... not Australia.

The competition all clubs play in was founded before Australia existed, in the self governing Colony of Victoria.

The foundation clubs of that comp, and several others, are older than Australia.

If Port don't like it, go back to the SANFL.

It was the combined efforts of the AFL/Victorian Governments that forced stadium standards higher, and made WA and SA update their ageing rinky dink affairs into proper footy/cricket grounds.

Since I've been on here (2006) Port haven't won a flag, had a serious financial crisis as bad as any Vic club, needed major AFL support, then leveled themselves out like other smaller cluybs such as North and the Dogs.

Is this all part of the big Vicco conspiracy too?

Maybe you guys could just invent your own game and play SA v WA matches?

You could call it "sookball".

 

[SimpkinByTheDockOfTheBay]

When the 'Big" Melbourne clubs wern't winning flags early this century the AFL shat itself and held an inquiry to make sure this didn't continue. Interstate clubs are now not winning flags....but that's quite ok by the AFL.

Carlton, Essendon and Collingwood have dominated since. Richmond only got good by following the equalisation model.