How the small Melbourne clubs saved footy

[HTT]

No, the reality is that the Dogs, Saints and North made a far greater financial contribution to paying off the stadium - that's now an AFL owned asset - than any others clubs.

Carlton paod a lot off, Essendon too although they had the best deal.

Richmond, Geelong and Collingwood all have played home games there.

The reality is - and it is a FACT - that the three small Melbourne clubs did more than any other to pay off the asset that now saves the entire competition.

I get you're struggling to accept this because you have a "Big Club" mentality.

But the reality is the AFL couldn't borrow $600 million against 7 Richmond home games in a row at the MCG.

That's just a fact.

So the billions of dollars in TV and sponsor deals weren't used to pay for the stadium? Without all 18 clubs, the competition doesn't survive this year. Big clubs drawing in money over years and years. NSW and QLD clubs expanding the reach of the league. Small clubs as you say filling in the gaps. To say one subset of clubs specifically saved the league is a bit rich.

 

[Kwality]

We paid it off.

the tenant clubs at Docklands disproportionately paid to get an asset

Did you pay it off or not? No wonder your claim lacks support, it does exist.

Sorry, I can't understand this post.

Are you suggesting that the Saints, North and the Dogs have NOT been tenant clubs at Docklands since 2000?

No I'm saying the clubs paid what was agreed with the owners in 2000. Nothing has changed. Its a hangover from closing Waverly when the Stadiums plundered AFL footy in Melbourne , suckered could replace plundered.
The MCC took what they want & recently did the same thing again over the GF.

 

[Cotchins Hair Piece]

Bloody Minnow clubs.

 

[The Warlord]

So the billions of dollars in TV and sponsor deals weren't used to pay for the stadium? Without all 18 clubs, the competition doesn't survive this year. Big clubs drawing in money over years and years. NSW and QLD clubs expanding the reach of the league. Small clubs as you say filling in the gaps. To say one subset of clubs specifically saved the league is a bit rich.

No the TV rights and sponsorship money didn't pay it off.

When those riches hit they were, belatedly, used to COMPENSATE the Docklands tenants clubs for shouldering an unfair burden of paying for what would become a communal asset.

The reality is the AFL has only one asset that it could borrow against to save the league.

And that asset was disproportionately funded by one subset of clubs.

 

[BF Tiger]

This is poor posting, but I won't report it as a troll, even though it clearly is.

Why can't you just discuss the matter at hand - the tenant clubs at Docklands disproportionately paid to get an asset in AFL hands that's now saved the comp?

North didn't disproportionately pay for it. Prior to the AFL paying a few bucks for the stadium any dollars North were handing over went to a third party, and then the AFL handed compo to North. How was that paying for the stadium? And if North wasn't the home team then they were most likely playing another home tenant, who then got compo from the AFL. And if they weren't playing another home tenant then they were playing a big side who had to shift one of their home games there, and then the AFL didn't have to hand over compo.

North saved the AFL about as much as Taylor Swift and U2 have, who have also played there.

 

[The Warlord]

Did you pay it off or not? No wonder your claim lacks support, it does exist.





No I'm saying the clubs paid what was agreed with the owners in 2000. Nothing has changed. Its a hangover from closing Waverly when the Stadiums plundered AFL footy in Melbourne , suckered could replace plundered.
The MCC took what they want & recently did the same thing again over the GF.

Lol, claim lacks support.

It isn't a claim.

It is a fact.

 

[Kwality]

North made a far greater financial contribution to paying off the stadium

just put up the numbers you used to make the original claim .. your facts.

 

[The Warlord]

North didn't disproportionately pay for it. Prior to the AFL paying a few bucks for the stadium any dollars North were handing over went to a third party, and then the AFL handed compo to North. How was that paying for the stadium? And if North wasn't the home team then they were most likely playing another home tenant, who then got compo from the AFL. And if they weren't playing another home tenant then they were playing a big side who had to shift one of their home games there, and then the AFL didn't have to hand over compo.

North saved the AFL about as much as Taylor Swift and U2 have, who have also played there.

Please go and research what actually happened before posting further on this thread.

 

[The Warlord]

just put up the numbers you used to make the original claim ..

Are you suggesting North, the Dogs and Saints weren't tenant clubs from the start?

And the AFL itself didn't acknowledge the unfairness of the stadium deals?

You do understand the AFL bought it early because it realised that was the best way to support the clubs paying it off?

Unsure why you're so agitated and emotional about this.

 

[Kwality]

Please go and research what actually happened before posting further on this thread.

You are the one who made the claim & you are the one not backing your claim.

We all know its a claim made ad nauseam - have you taken that as fact?

 

[Kwality]

Are you suggesting North, the Dogs and Saints weren't tenant clubs from the start?

And the AFL itself didn't acknowledge the unfairness of the stadium deals?

You do understand the AFL bought it early because it realised that was the best way to support the clubs paying it off?

Unsure why you're so agitated and emotional about this.

The AFL bought it when they negotiated a deal that suited them.

 

[BF Tiger]

Please go and research what actually happened before posting further on this thread.

If you've done all the research why don't you post it here to support your claim. You've just come out with a ridiculous claim and provided no supporting evidence. Convince me is all I'm asking.

Instead it is just typical North - after saving the AFL with Friday night footy, they have now saved the AFL by buying Docklands for them.

If only you had played more games there instead of selling them to Tassie maybe all the players wouldn't have had to take a pay cut.

 

[Cotchins Hair Piece]

These isolation laws have a lot to answer for.

 

[Underarm]

We're not small but happy to have chipped in at least once a year.

 

[bluespooner]

Week after week St Kilda, the Dogs and North have occupied the crappy slots in the fixture.

4.40PM Sunday at Docklands. 1.10PM Sunday at Docklands. Usually against an interstate team. The graveyard slot.

Hawthorn played 6 of their first 11 games last year in the Sunday afternoon slot. They don't use it as a reason for why they should get extra AFL dividends, they just get on with it and survive off their own back (despite having to pay a poverty redistribution tax to support the 3 clubs mentioned).

 

[Kwality]

Hawthorn played 6 of their first 11 games last year in the Sunday afternoon slot. They don't use it as a reason for why they should get extra AFL dividends, they just get on with it and survive off their own back (despite having to pay a poverty redistribution tax to support the 3 clubs mentioned).

Its an excuse used so often some people believe it.

 

[Bulldog1954]

Hawthorn played 6 of their first 11 games last year in the Sunday afternoon slot. They don't use it as a reason for why they should get extra AFL dividends, they just get on with it and survive off their own back (despite having to pay a poverty redistribution tax to support the 3 clubs mentioned).

How do you define 'just got on with it'? Kennett complained publicly repeatedly, stated the AFL was 'manipulating' the draw and wrote a letter to Hawthorn members claiming it was disrespectful.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

The big clubs did the bulk of the work to secure the massive TV and sponsorship deals that put the league in a position where the small clubs could help pay for a stadium. Well done.

How's that 'work' exactly?

Being handed blockbusters every year and primetime fixtures week in week out is clearly where the big crowd revenue and TV audiences are generated - but is it really 'work'?

Trying to get small fan bases to pay up every year and rock up every week at 1pm on a Sunday arvo against interstate clubs is where the actual 'work' is.

 

[Kwality]

How do you define 'just got on with it'? Kennett complained publicly repeatedly, stated the AFL was 'manipulating' the draw and wrote a letter to Hawthorn members claiming it was disrespectful.

I call it a FIXture.

 

[HTT]

How's that 'work' exactly?

Being handed blockbusters every year and primetime fixtures week in week out is clearly where the big crowd revenue and TV audiences are generated - but is it really 'work'?

Trying to get small fan bases to pay up every year and rock up every week at 1pm on a Sunday arvo against interstate clubs is where the actual 'work' is.

See my club
Mismanage it and you can have as many supporters as you want - you won’t make any money. But a club with a lot of underlying support that gets its s**t together will.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

See my club
Mismanage it and you can have as many supporters as you want - you won’t make any money. But a club with a lot of underlying support that gets its s**t together will.

So Saints, North, Dogs, GWS, Gold Coast simply never will?

 

[HTT]

So Saints, North, Dogs, GWS, Gold Coast simply never will?

No, that’s not at all what I’m suggesting. But the largest portion of the money made comes from big clubs. You said that may just be due to getting a good draw etc. but the recent example of my club I.e. always had a lot of support, but nearly died in the expansion era due to mismanagement, suggests its more than that. A good draw doesn’t take you from rattling tins to 100k members. Only difference between Richmond and Collingwood/West Coast is the latter pair have been doing it for longer.

In short - all clubs contribute to why the league will survive this year. Highlighting a subset seems silly.

 

[The Warlord]

How's that 'work' exactly?

Being handed blockbusters every year and primetime fixtures week in week out is clearly where the big crowd revenue and TV audiences are generated - but is it really 'work'?

Trying to get small fan bases to pay up every year and rock up every week at 1pm on a Sunday arvo against interstate clubs is where the actual 'work' is.

Exactly right.

 

[bluespooner]

How do you define 'just got on with it'? Kennett complained publicly repeatedly, stated the AFL was 'manipulating' the draw and wrote a letter to Hawthorn members claiming it was disrespectful.

Well Kennett was correct but what was Hawthorn's financial compensation for playing the graveyard game in 6 of the first 11 games? You know the basis for why north, footscray and the saints claim entitlement to large AFL disbursements; no doubt Hawthorn got the second or third lowest AFL dividend handed out again.

 

[Sonny Bonds]

Why do w***er supporters need justification on the team they support. I support a big 4 club blah blah. All you literately did is choose a club or you were brought up supporting said club.

People coming to work saying we did this and we won that. You didn't actually do anything but purchase a ticket and sit on your fat arse cheering.

Richmond supporter hanging premiership posters up at work. It's good you enjoyed the GF mate (even though you don't purchase a membership or didn't attend the game), but no one really gives a s**t when you keep babbling on about how good WE are.

GAGF.