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

[SimpkinByTheDockOfTheBay]

You sound more intelligent when you respond to the view in the post, rather than attack the posters club.

Tell me Simp, what is it you disagree with what I said?

The smarmy tone about "additional handouts" when the entire thread is based on an article proving that Richmond have actually got far more than their fair share of handouts in relative terms.

Richmond are the bogan girl that landed a rich husband now treat the servants like crap.

 

[Rich01]

The smarmy tone about "additional handouts" when the entire thread is based on an article proving that Richmond have actually got far more than their fair share of handouts in relative terms.

Richmond are the bogan girl that landed a rich husband now treat the servants like crap.

Far more than their fair share in relative terms? How are you defining this?

Do you mean more than the average of the total handouts given by the AFL at this time? Or that the club is in the top half of the teams for handouts given during this time?

 

[SimpkinByTheDockOfTheBay]

Far more than their fair share in relative terms? How are you defining this?

Do you mean more than the average of the total handouts given by the AFL at this time? Or that the club is in the top half of the teams for handouts given during this time?

Having learned long ago about your tedious sealioning style on this stuff, why don't you tell me why despite being the "biggest club in the land", Richmond got soooooooo much more than smaller clubs like Collingwood and Essendon?

Oh that's right, the Tiges needed ADDITIONAL HANDOUTS just like everyone else.

Richmond	$105,000,000
Essendon	$100,000,000
Adelaide	$99,700,000
Fremantle	$99,000,000
Hawthorn	$96,500,000
Geelong	$95,800,000
West Coast	$93,500,000
Collingwood	$93,300,000

 

[Rich01]

Having learned long ago about your tedious sealioning style on this stuff, why don't you tell me why despite being the "biggest club in the land", Richmond got soooooooo much more than smaller clubs like Collingwood and Essendon?

Oh that's right, the Tiges needed ADDITIONAL HANDOUTS just like everyone else.

Richmond	$105,000,000
Essendon	$100,000,000
Adelaide	$99,700,000
Fremantle	$99,000,000
Hawthorn	$96,500,000
Geelong	$95,800,000
West Coast	$93,500,000
Collingwood	$93,300,000

Why did you crop the table?

And you are still deflecting from your claim that Richmond received more than their fair share of handouts in relative terms. Was it more than the average handout? Or more than most teams? How did you define relative to make such a claim?

Or are you waking away from this now?

 

[smasha]

North fan obsessing over Richmond.
I am shocked to be sitting here.
#weareeveryonesgrandfinal

 

[SimpkinByTheDockOfTheBay]

North fan obsessing over Richmond.
I am shocked to be sitting here.
#weareeveryonesgrandfinal

Are you still up from last night, or just making an early start because its a long weekend?

 

[SimpkinByTheDockOfTheBay]

Why did you crop the table?

I cropped the table to Richmond because we're talking about why Richmond required so much in ADDITIONAL HANDOUTS compared to Essendon and Collingwood.

Why is that?

 

[smasha]

I cropped the table to Richmond because we're talking about why Richmond required so much in ADDITIONAL HANDOUTS compared to Essendon and Collingwood.

Why is that?

Give it up mate FFS.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

I’m not asking North, St Kilda etc to pay back the cash. I think they should now be able to stand on their own two feet and not get additional handouts. North is now debt free, with the help of some frugal spending and also additional afl handouts. Hopefully these clubs can stay debt free and also get off the teet to continue to do it legitimately.

I agree the aim is for all club's to be self sustainable but putting some arbitrary timeline on it because Richmond has managed to get things in order the last 3 or 4 years (off the back of a huge amount of onfield success) is what I don't understand.

Also while the AFL continues to have policies that restrict the ability of those club's to earn more revenue then it is only fair that there is a "revenue sharing"/compensation model to account for it. The competition as a whole is stronger when all club's are stronger (a rising tide etc) so even with some club's receiving additional funding it is better for everyone and adds more value to the competition as a whole.

 

[Obeanie1]

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.

$100 million over the last 10 years difference in AFL funding between some clubs.

You think thats all good do you?

Sustainable?

Reasonable?

Take off your Big V tshirt, stop trolling and be honest.

 

[SimpkinByTheDockOfTheBay]

Give it up mate FFS.

So no answer to the question.

 

[Frank Grimes]

I agree the aim is for all club's to be self sustainable but putting some arbitrary timeline on it because Richmond has managed to get things in order the last 3 or 4 years (off the back of a huge amount of onfield success) is what I don't understand.

Richmond got things in order before the success of the last 3 ~4 years. It started with the fighting tiger fund in 2010 and Richmond were out of debt within a couple of years from that. Richmond's good off field management is not because of the success of the last several years, it is more the on field success can partially attributed to Richmond's good off field management.

 

[Obeanie1]

Having learned long ago about your tedious sealioning style on this stuff, why don't you tell me why despite being the "biggest club in the land", Richmond got soooooooo much more than smaller clubs like Collingwood and Essendon?

Oh that's right, the Tiges needed ADDITIONAL HANDOUTS just like everyone else.

Richmond	$105,000,000
Essendon	$100,000,000
Adelaide	$99,700,000
Fremantle	$99,000,000
Hawthorn	$96,500,000
Geelong	$95,800,000
West Coast	$93,500,000
Collingwood	$93,300,000

Isnt because they were operating with a really old ground and facilities? They got extra rto build new facilities at Punt road.

And because they dont get prime time tv spots and big crowds they needed the helpy?.......Oh wait a second.......thats total BS.

 

[SimpkinByTheDockOfTheBay]

I agree the aim is for all club's to be self sustainable but putting some arbitrary timeline on it because Richmond has managed to get things in order the last 3 or 4 years (off the back of a huge amount of onfield success) is what I don't understand.

Exactly.

 

[Papa G]

2021 Distributions
GC 26,317,000
GWS 23,500,00
Bris 21,574,000
Saints 21446,000
Melb 18,957,000
WB 18,808,000
North 17,441,000
Carlton 15,880,000
Collingwood 15,019,000
Port 14,889,000
Swans 14,621,000
Rich 14,192,000
Geelong 13,714,000
Freo 13,334,000
Ess 13,319,000
Adelaide 13,157,000
WC 12,678,000
Hawks 12,274,000

 

[Kwality]

2021 Distributions
GC 26,317,000
GWS 23,500,00
Bris 21,574,000
Saints 21446,000
Melb 18,957,000
WB 18,808,000
North 17,441,000
Carlton 15,880,000
Collingwood 15,019,000
Port 14,889,000
Swans 14,621,000
Rich 14,192,000
Geelong 13,714,000
Freo 13,334,000
Ess 13,319,000
Adelaide 13,157,000
WC 12,678,000
Hawks 12,274,000

Interesting groupings when listed above:
1-3 expansion clubs
4-9 Melbourne clubs
10-12 long established clubs (SA, NSW, Melbourne)
13-18 reliable performers

 

[Trent the flight Steward]

Win flags.

We can't all be propped up by the Victorian taxpayers like the Geelong Leeches.

Ha our stadium allows us to be profitable, as well as Brian cook setting us up for life

 

[Papa G]

Interesting groupings when listed above:
1-3 expansion clubs
4-9 Melbourne clubs
10-12 long established clubs (SA, NSW, Melbourne)
13-18 reliable performers

Carlton and particularly Collingwood's position are surprising. Perhaps it indicates how heavily Collingwood's business model depends on their commercially highly advantageous fixture?

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Richmond got things in order before the success of the last 3 ~4 years. It started with the fighting tiger fund in 2010 and Richmond were out of debt within a couple of years from that. Richmond's good off field management is not because of the success of the last several years, it is more the on field success can partially attributed to Richmond's good off field management.

AFL funding ladder revealed: $100m gap between top and bottom clubs

The size of the gap is a sore point for some power clubs, with Essendon president Paul Brasher demanding a say in how the next round of money is doled out.

www.theage.com.au

AFL sources said the larger allocation to the Tigers reflected their far weaker position earlier in the 2010s, when they carried a sizeable debt and did not have anything like their present day membership or income. They were still given total variable funding, however, of just less than $2.5 million, from 2018 to 2020, after they won the 2017 premiership, but nothing in 2021.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Ha our stadium allows us to be profitable, as well as Brian cook setting us up for life

How much in stages 1-4?

Stage 5 - Kardinia Park Stadium Trust

www.kardiniapark.vic.gov.au

The Victorian State Government has committed $142m to enable the 5th stage of the GMHBA Stadium redevelopment at Kardinia Park.

 

[Rich01]

I cropped the table to Richmond because we're talking about why Richmond required so much in ADDITIONAL HANDOUTS compared to Essendon and Collingwood.

Why is that?

So you’ve moved the goalposts of your argument from proof that the table shows more than fair handouts to comparing to two clubs?

Hilarious.

Still believe clubs like yours need to get off the teet of extra funding now you are debt free. Just like my club did. Don’t you agree?

 

[Demonic Ascent]

So you’ve moved the goalposts of your argument from proof that the table shows more than fair handouts to comparing to two clubs?

Hilarious.

Still believe clubs like yours need to get off the teet of extra funding now you are debt free. Just like my club did. Don’t you agree?

When the AFL stops disadvantaging those club's with their fixturing policies impacting their ability to draw revenue (members, sponsors, game day attendance for starters) for the last 3 decades, sure.

 

[Papa G]

When the AFL stops disadvantaging those club's with their fixturing policies impacting their ability to draw revenue (members, sponsors, game day attendance for starters) for the last 3 decades, sure.

And this comes back to the corrupt MCG Contract which you claim isn't. You can't have it both ways.

 

[bzparkes]

Pretty funny this north supporting OP, especially considering the thing his club is most significant for is Carey doing the dirty on Stevens and somehow avoiding being shipped off the the GC.

Then the audacity to claim North has done more for Aussie Rules than the state of WA?

Thanks for the laugh. Have you considered a career in comedy?

 

[Demonic Ascent]

And this comes back to the corrupt MCG Contract which you claim isn't. You can't have it both ways.

Rubbish, it's the tv rights deal not the MCG contract. Completely separate issues.