How the small Melbourne clubs saved footy

[BF Tiger]

As I said pages ago, what exact "financials" do you need?

This is just a word you've been taught and now throw around, not understanding the meaning.

How about starting with something that proves the AFL's contribution of $230 million is of so little significance that your 55% of games offsets it.

Here's a little thought exercise... purely hypothetical.

Let's say the $230,000,000 paid for 25% of the contract. I'm happy to calculate the Dockland tenants you're batting for as having contributed an equal 1/16th share each, although the real figure is probably lower. So 3/16 of $230,000,000 is $43,000,000, with the other 13/16 = $187,000,000.

That would also put the remaining 75% at $690,000,000 which we'll assume for this exercise was paid off through the 900+ games played at Docklands.

If the Roos, WB and Saints played in 55% of them that would equate to $380,000,000 paid by those clubs, with the other $310,000,000 paid by the other clubs.

So now adding up all the separate parts we get Roos, WB and Saints paying $423,000,000, with the other clubs paying $497,000,000. That's before taking into account the extra $$$ tenant clubs receive from the AFL/other clubs, which the tenant clubs have used to pay Docklands.

But as you're the OP you'll have to come up with actual figures. Onus probandi.

 

[BF Tiger]

yeah those big clubs, they really pack out docklands......
View attachment 873833

Richmond averages less than StKilda. hahah. HUGE club.... thanks christ Richmond saved footy

You mean that even though we have played 27 of 45 home games (60%) at Docklands against interstate sides we average less than 200 extra patrons to all our home games compared to the Saints, even though they have played less than 50% of their home games at Docklands against interstate sides? At a ground that isn't our normal ground.

Do you want to calculate how many were in the graveyard slot?

 

[Mat Mann]

You mean that even though we have played 27 of 45 home games (60%) at Docklands against interstate sides we average less than 200 extra patrons to all our home games compared to the Saints, even though they have played less than 50% of their home games at Docklands against interstate sides? At a ground that isn't our normal ground.

Do you want to calculate how many were in the graveyard slot?

wait we're putting an asterisk on it are we, so now who, when and where counts, It must help a lot that you play the other big clubs in prime slots at a ground that actually make you money twice a year. Saints haven't hosted Collingwood for 2 years, We've played Geelong in Geelong the last 3, Play Hawthorn, North in Tasmania or otherwise on Sunday arvo, Hell even the Maddies Match that both clubs do, was shoved to Sunday Arvo.

asterisk: Richmond's poor attendance at the Docklands is because of reasons that cant apply to any other club.

wasn't so long ago you sold games interstate, despite having these advantages that my club hasn't

 

[BF Tiger]

wait we're putting an asterisk on it are we, so now who, when and where counts, It must help a lot that you play the other big clubs in prime slots at a ground that actually make you money twice a year. Saints haven't hosted Collingwood for 2 years, We've played Geelong in Geelong the last 3, Play Hawthorn, North in Tasmania or otherwise on Sunday arvo, Hell even the Maddies Match that both clubs do, was shoved to Sunday Arvo.

asterisk: Richmond's poor attendance at the Docklands is because of reasons that cant apply to any other club.

wasn't so long ago you sold games interstate, despite having these advantages that my club hasn't

OP thought it was a valid point, see below.

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.

For many years we even paid for the privilege, such was the shocking nature of the stadium deals we got.

But every game we played there chipped away at the future where the AFL would own the stadium.

Finally the AFL was in a position to buy the stadium early.

And now COVID-19 has thrown the competition off track, the AFL has been forced to seek a line of credit of hundreds of millions.

Using the stadium as security, the loan was secured. And yes, a few clubs are individually wealthy enough to have seen out the shutdown, but they would have no league to play in. Collingwood and Richmond and Hawthorn and West Coast isn't a league.

So, remember what saved footy - the poor little Melbourne clubs paying off Docklands Stadium provided the league with the security it needed to get through this.

ANZAC Day "blockbusters" didn't save footy, North v Freo at 4.40PM on a Sunday did.

Richmond's endless MCG primetime runs didn't save footy, St Kilda vs Port at 1.10PM on a Sunday did.

No Showdown or Derby or Q Clash or Battle of the Bridge put a single cent toward saving footy, but the Dogs playing Gold Coast on a shitful Sunday arvo did.

AFL agrees to purchase Etihad Stadium

The AFL has agreed to purchase Etihad Stadium in a deal reported to be worth about $200 million.

www.theage.com.au

 

[Freomaniac]

He can't - back in 2007 he was all utensil a hoop over North dying and being sent to the Gold Coast, danced on our grave a bit too early.

Has had a personal obsession against me for a decade ever since as I was quite vocal on the Keep North South side.

Yes North have sacrificed themselves to save the AFL.

North are in Struggle street

 

[The Warlord]

Yes North have sacrificed themselves to save the AFL.

North are in Struggle street

This doesn't even make any sense. Off you go.

 

[Senor M]

wait we're putting an asterisk on it are we, so now who, when and where counts, It must help a lot that you play the other big clubs in prime slots at a ground that actually make you money twice a year. Saints haven't hosted Collingwood for 2 years, We've played Geelong in Geelong the last 3, Play Hawthorn, North in Tasmania or otherwise on Sunday arvo, Hell even the Maddies Match that both clubs do, was shoved to Sunday Arvo.

asterisk: Richmond's poor attendance at the Docklands is because of reasons that cant apply to any other club.

wasn't so long ago you sold games interstate, despite having these advantages that my club hasn't

How were the home games in New Zealand & China??

 

[BF Tiger]

Wasn't so long ago they were out begging fans of other teams for money to keep the lights on. Something my club has never done and I don't think the Saints have either.

View attachment 873868

Are we meant to be ashamed of that? That was fundraising back in the 80s. Maybe we should’ve got David Dench to embezzle some money for us instead.

And a bit harsh with the “wasn’t so long ago” I would’ve thought. I file it unde “things that happened last century”, right next to North’s last premiership.

 

[Freomaniac]

How were the home games in New Zealand & China??

Look, Lets just All admit that teams like West coast, Richmond, Collingwood, Hawks and essendon are wealthy clubs with money.

While clubs like GWS, Gold Coast, North, Saints, Bulldogs are all on Struggle street, Not in Mount Druitt in NSW obivously, financially.

 

[BF Tiger]

Look, Lets just All admit that teams like West coast, Richmond, Collingwood, Hawks and essendon are wealthy clubs with money.

While clubs like GWS, Gold Coast, North, Saints, Bulldogs are all on Struggle street, Not in Mount Druitt in NSW obivously, financially.

North might sell a home game there though.

 

[Mat Mann]

OP thought it was a valid point, see below.

Its a very valid argument, one that we are completely in agreement with, the WHO WHEN and WHERE is a massive issue and one that the Richmonds and Collingwoods get the carrot and clubs like North, Dogs, and Saints got the stick.

How were the home games in New Zealand & China??

Extremely profitable, so much so we earned more form 1 game in NZ than we earned from an entire season at Etihad
The 1 China game, that so many are happy to lampoon earned my club in excess of $1m (incl. sponsors the got involved for the specific game) and again trumped the seasons' earnings from Docklands

Are we meant to be ashamed of that? That was fundraising back in the 80s. Maybe we should’ve got David Dench to embezzle some money for us instead.

And a bit harsh with the “wasn’t so long ago” I would’ve thought. I file it unde “things that happened last century”, right next to North’s last premiership.

Ashamed, Nah, most clubs have fundraised for various causes, some to stay alive, or most recently specifically at your club, to eradicate debt, and build a stronger club, but maybe you need to be aware of your own club's history before shaming others about theirs.

Since the establishment of the Fighting Tiger Fund (FTF) in 2011, the Club has reached some significant milestones thanks to the contribution of the Club’s members, who have gone above and beyond their membership to contribute to the FTF.

The FTF was established and successfully funded the five key investment priorities that were identified by the Club in 2011.

• Punt Road Oval Redevelopment
• Total Player Payments and List Management
• Standalone Richmond Reserves Side
• Reduce Debt (Became eradicate debt)
• High Performance

The cycle of mediocrity has been broken, and we are now ready to take the next step. The FTF provides funding that allows the Club to continue to build financial stability, and cement the Club’s future so we never look back.

The Club has identified three pillars that are crucial to ensuring the Richmond Football Club continues to build towards a 'Strong and Bold Premiership Club'.

• Infrastructure, Facilities and Enablement
• On-field Performance
• Community Engagement and Corporate Social Responsibility

Contributions can be made to the Fighting Tiger Fund to support the Richmond Football Club, or alternatively donors can contribute directly to one of the three pillars.

 

[The Warlord]

Are we meant to be ashamed of that? That was fundraising back in the 80s. Maybe we should’ve got David Dench to embezzle some money for us instead.

And a bit harsh with the “wasn’t so long ago” I would’ve thought. I file it unde “things that happened last century”, right next to North’s last premiership.

Good point, the small clubs have been paying off Docklands since 2000 (a year after our last flag) so that demonstrates just how long we've been carrying the burden on behalf of the whole league.

Another tremendous self own.

 

[The Warlord]

North might sell a home game there though.

Why were Richmond selling home games to Cairns?

When you get such massive crowds at the MCG on such a good deal?

 

[Walt Kowalski]

No, tell me why you think it could have been paid off more quickly if "the big clubs actually paid there".

You posted it Walt.

Also, you named yourself after a violent racist piece of crap, I'll condescend to you all I want.

You're quite the obnoxious turd, aren't you?

Yeh, a violent racist piece of crap. Who befriends, then defends, a Hmoon family, and sacrifices himself to make their neighbourhood safer for them.

Try to look beyond superficialities when you judge people. I hope you aren't this knee jerk in your reactions in real life.

 

[Senor M]

Why were Richmond selling home games to Cairns?

When you get such massive crowds at the MCG on such a good deal?

In 2010 (when Richmond were the 'worst team' since Fitzroy) the club had a $5 million debt. Partly because of poor management within the club, mostly due to not being seen as a 'marquee' club when we had made finals twice in almost 30 years. Richmond made a financial decision to sell games for three years to get back to into the black while the club was still rebuilding and then stopped the deal once we became a regular finals team.

Makes sense for a club do make decisions in the short-term that financially benefit them.

 

[Mat Mann]

In 2010 (when Richmond were the 'worst team' since Fitzroy) the club had a $5 million debt. Partly because of poor management within the club, mostly due to not being seen as a 'marquee' club when we had made finals twice in almost 30 years. Richmond made a financial decision to sell games for three years to get back to into the black while the club was still rebuilding and then stopped the deal once we became a regular finals team.

Makes sense for a club do make decisions in the short-term that financially benefit them.

and what about clubs that cannot make the decision, that have that decision made for them, for 15 years that's exactly whats happened and is the crux of the debate.

 

[BF Tiger]

The selling of home games came shortly after we installed the smartest man in football as our CEO. Meanwhile North had James Brayshaw (did he ever deliver those white knights?).

As I’ve said before Richmond could provide the roadmap out of mediocrity for certain clubs.

 

[Senor M]

and what about clubs that cannot make the decision, that have that decision made for them, for 15 years that's exactly whats happened and is the crux of the debate.

The AFL forced St. Kilda to sell games to China, New Zealand, Tasmania— where else has the Saints played home games??

I’m not sure what that has to with the topic.

 

[Mat Mann]

The AFL forced St. Kilda to sell games to China, New Zealand, Tasmania— where else has the Saints played home games??

I’m not sure what that has to with the topic.

no the AFL in conjunction with Docklands management forced an unfair and crippling stadium deal on the said 3 clubs................

answer me this, now under the AFL ownership, why are there still 3 distinct stadium deals in place for the 5 tenant clubs, why did the AFL, when they re-did the docklands stadium deals (after a year of ownership) maintain 3 distinct deals. Why did the AFL then go to the MCC and renegotiate a deal there that saw the MCG clubs get the same increase that the Docklands clubs did....

Even the 2018 AFL agreement saw a

The AFL purchased Etihad Stadium for a reported $200 million late last year in a deal it promised would secure significantly improved financial results for tenant clubs and, in particular, the Bulldogs, St Kilda and North Melbourne, which had been at a significant disadvantage due to historically poor ground agreements.

But clubs have told Fairfax Media that the AFL's initial financial forecasts to the tenant clubs for 2018 were in some cases barely 10 per cent ahead of previous returns.

The AFL has told the clubs it wants to pay off a significant proportion of the Etihad debt by the end of the current six-year broadcast rights deal, fearing the next media deal will fall in value.

But the smaller Etihad home clubs remain disenchanted that they are being asked to continue to carry responsibility for the AFL's debt when they had understood the new ownership agreement would help significantly reduce their own debts.

The selling of home games came shortly after we installed the smartest man in football as our CEO. Meanwhile North had James Brayshaw (did he ever deliver those white knights?).

Brayshaw saw North get out of Debt, the same as Gale, He may be a tool, but IMO did a pretty good job of getting North on the right track after the 2007 rejection of re-location.

As I’ve said before Richmond could provide the roadmap out of mediocrity for certain clubs.

so the roadmap is,

Go to members for a handout, get better, enjoy a profitable tenant deal, roll in cash.

the catch is that the Docklands isn't all that profitable, the AFL refuses to give said 3 clubs a standalone game(blockbuster) nor multiple-night fixtures, We arent guaranteed at play the "other big clubs" twice a year. We didn't get given a season opener when we were a putrid side.

did you know StKilda would have recorded its 5th in 6 years highest member tally, the only year we didn't was following the 2018 disaster, but even then we only fell short by a few thousand!

 

[BF Tiger]

no the AFL in conjunction with Docklands management forced an unfair and crippling stadium deal on the said 3 clubs................

answer me this, now under the AFL ownership, why are there still 3 distinct stadium deals in place for the 5 tenant clubs, why did the AFL, when they re-did the docklands stadium deals (after a year of ownership) maintain 3 distinct deals. Why did the AFL then go to the MCC and renegotiate a deal there that saw the MCG clubs get the same increase that the Docklands clubs did....

Even the 2018 AFL agreement saw a




Brayshaw saw North get out of Debt, the same as Gale, He may be a tool, but IMO did a pretty good job of getting North on the right track after the 2007 rejection of re-location.

so the roadmap is,

Go to members for a handout, get better, enjoy a profitable tenant deal, roll in cash.

the catch is that the Docklands isn't all that profitable, the AFL refuses to give said 3 clubs a standalone game(blockbuster) nor multiple-night fixtures, We arent guaranteed at play the "other big clubs" twice a year. We didn't get given a season opener when we were a putrid side.

did you know StKilda would have recorded its 5th in 6 years highest member tally, the only year we didn't was following the 2018 disaster, but even then we only fell short by a few thousand!

Firstly, great work by the Saints growing their membership base. I looked up the numbers and I would have expected them to be higher, given the Saints were playing in grand finals a decade ago. But credit up to them doing that through a period of poor on-field performance and no finals.

Why are there all those deals in place? Because the AFL holds the whip. Everyone has acknowledged they are crap deals.

In your roadmap description you forgot get laughed at for an aspirational 3-0-75 plan, not move to Seaford, stick by the coach, value your players,...

This paragraph you supplied (bolded below)... it reads like the AFL is using broadcast deal money to pay off Docklands. Do you think that is fair?

The AFL has told the clubs it wants to pay off a significant proportion of the Etihad debt by the end of the current six-year broadcast rights deal, fearing the next media deal will fall in value.

 

[Freomaniac]

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.

100% agree with your post.

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

you must be proud. Smaller clubs such as Saints, North and dogs should follow the tigers example.

No, because Docklands doesn’t hold 77,000.

My thoughts exactly.

The Eagles played in the 'late' Sunday afternoon slot twice in 2019 (Round 11 & Round 21)--- do you ever base your #VICBIAS whinges on any actual factual information or just continue to make things up??

How's the 60% of West Coast supporters under the age of 33?

I reckon West coast fans are similar to crows fans. They have a big supporter base but I assume half the eagles supporters are in that 40-60 year old range.

But thats not the point.

Yes I know its the off season.

The point is that the OP claimed that Smaller clubs like North, Saints and Dogs have saved the AFL from bankruptcy. This post started earlier this season and ended up as a 30-35 page poo fight between the OP that is a North fan and people that opposed the OPs view, a fair amount of them were richmond fans. No offense to richmond fans such as the undertaker Tzatziki_Man as the person is now known as.

as the OP was named JeanLucGoddard and the OP changed their username too.

So.... Again. This thread started, I seriously thought of this as a Joke or an Indirect troll thread....

Well since this thread started, everything has hit the fan due to the Corona Virus.

And because of this corona virus outbreak, The AFL has done a lot of things and changed a lot of things.

And I noticed this as well. Round 1, Docklands had crowds.

Rounds 2-5 docklands had minimal to no crowds.

From round 6 onwards, Vic clubs were forced into hubs in Queensland.


So basically this thread aged well.

I am curious with the OPs view now after the corona virus out break here in Australia.

 

[CaptchaProofBot]

spot the attention seeker...

 

[BringBackTorps]

The AFL announced last week the new plans for DS, with $220m improvements etc. to commence soon. Details & photos of the changes are in the link below.

The AFL will derive much greater profits from making DS into a 365 day & night pa entertainment venue- with roof top bars overlooking the harbour, restaurants, convention rooms, night clubs, plaza etc.

Tasmania - Congratulations on Tassie License. Mens team to enter 2028. Womens team TBA. Other details TBA 3/5

GO TO PART 2 of this thread: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/congratulations-on-tassie-license-mens-team-to-enter-2028-womens-team-tba-other-details-tba-3-5-part-2.1357724/

www.bigfooty.com

(Scroll to my post# 2738)

As the St K, NM, & Footscray FC's have born a severe financial burden of the grossly unfair DS contracts that were imposed upon them, & poor match time slots, the AFL must alter these contracts to make them much more profitable for these Clubs.
Without these grossly unfair contracts, private equity would never have built DS- the guaranteed profits made its construction virtually risk free.

 

[The_Wookie]

As the St K, NM, & WB FC's have born a severe financial burden of the grossly unfair DS contracts that were imposed upon them, & poor match time slots, the AFL must alter these contracts to make them much more profitable for these Clubs.

Without these grossly unfair contracts, private equity would never have built DS- the guaranteed profits made its construction virtually risk free.

These clubs have been manifestly compensated by the league since 2002, and most have benefited from the blockbuster levy originally created in the 80s by the VFL.

Its likely these three clubs dont have contracts at all. The league had a contract to schedule a certain number of games - Essendon was the only club that had a contract to 2025, Carltons expired (and was renewed with one less game) 2014. The other three havent had their own contracts since 2007. The choices are Docklands or the MCG and the MCG wont negotiate with new clubs any more.

Importantly - and overlooked - is that clubs claiming losses from hosting are doing so based off gate reciepts and stadium returns, which are generally used to pay match costs, and dont include membership and reserved seating in the calculation.

 

[CaptchaProofBot]

yeah those big clubs, they really pack out docklands......
View attachment 873833

Richmond averages less than StKilda. hahah. HUGE club.... thanks christ Richmond saved footy

well at least you know how to crop I'll give you that.

here's the FULL table for other ppl to look at, no cherry picking here.



All games average: (Exc. Finals as Rich does not play finals there)

St.Kilda - 8229386 / 250 = 32918
Rich - 3163394 / 91 = 34763