Interesting idea.....

[Dave]

"INFLUENTIAL Kangaroos director Mark Dawson says the AFL should stop giving end-of-year dividends to wealthy clubs, and increase the payments to struggling ones."

http://www.afl.com.au/news/story_227857.htm

And if these clubs still can't compete financially what next? Demand that the others clubs pay them a divedend? That membership funds be re-directed?

 

[WCE2000]

there was already a topic on this called "Beyond a Joke" and this was the reply i gave:

I think temporarily, if the AFL give more of a benefit to sturggling cluibs, it will in the long-run help the interstate clubs.

I don't mean entirely cutting of the benefits, but say cutting them in half for a couple of years.

A clause in the TV rights deal, is that there must be 8 games a week for the full 500 million dollars to be payed out.

If North fold, it means there will only by 7 games a week, and the 500 million dollars is cut by some percantage.

So, if North fold, it would end up going against every other club. So maybe for a couple of seasons, just to give them a few more benefits would help the other stronger AFL clubs.

 

[ruth]

What is this guy on.
What a tosser.
Never will happen. Essendon, Carlton and Collingwood would go troppo.

 

[Macca19]

Originally posted by Dave
"INFLUENTIAL Kangaroos director Mark Dawson says the AFL should stop giving end-of-year dividends to wealthy clubs, and increase the payments to struggling ones."

http://www.afl.com.au/news/story_227857.htm

And if these clubs still can't compete financially what next? Demand that the others clubs pay them a divedend? That membership funds be re-directed?

I think Sheedy summed up feelings about Mark Dawson a few years back when he said "Dawson only went to Port Adelaide to learn about credibility and being tough"

The guy is a dickhead and im sad he played in a Port guernsey

 

[WCE2000]

At the moment, each club gets 6.25% of the overall dividend. If they changed it abit for the next couple of years, to try and get some of the struggling clubs on their feet, it would end up benefiting all the clubs. So i think they should change it too this breakdown for each club for 2 or 3 years:

Adelaide 4.25
Brisbane 4.25
Carlton 5.25
Collingwood 5.25
Essendon 5.25
Fremantle 4.25
Geelong 8.25
Kangaroos 9.25
Hawthorn 9.25
Melbourne 8.25
Port Adelaide 4.25
Richmond 5.25
St Kilda 9.25
Sydney 4.25
West Coast 4.25
Western Bulldogs 9.25

All those figures are a percantage of the overall dividend.

 

[hawkfan5]

why??

Why does Hawthorn need so much of the percentage. We are one of the richer clubs arent we?? In the last few years we have been making the most profit out of any teams and we have 29,000 members so why you give them almost 10%

 

[ruth]

If this happens, it will end up in court.
I for one at Brisbane, where we struggle financially, due to being in a Rubgy dominated state, would be furious, if we lost money, to other teams.

 

[choppy]

Originally posted by ruth
If this happens, it will end up in court.
I for one at Brisbane, where we struggle financially, due to being in a Rubgy dominated state, would be furious, if we lost money, to other teams.

I would be furious if a team was to recieve priority drafting concessions, to have been given a playing list (ie Fitzroy) which was totally stuffed up, to recieve and then lose a Melbourne supporter base through incompetence, to recieve government handouts to upgrade training facilities to a your ground.

Oh a team has allready got that. Wonder who that was?

 

[choppy]

Originally posted by Dave
[BAnd if these clubs still can't compete financially what next? Demand that the others clubs pay them a divedend? That membership funds be re-directed? [/B]

What about clubs who cant compete on the field. But thats different isn't it. It is okay for other clubs to recieve priority draft picks, to recieve priority pre season draft picks which are used to poach players from clubs.

It is okay for clubs to breach the salary cap and thereby buy success.

It is okay for interstate clubs to receive millions of dollars from governments to upgrade their grounds and facilities thereby leaving their dividends to be spent on palatial administration offices and training facilities.

It is okay for certain Melbourne clubs to receive millions to go to Waverly and then Millions to go to Coloniel and then receive some more when the projections didn't meet targets.

It is okay for Essendon to recieve millions to move from Windy Hill to the MCG and then to Coloniel.

It is okay for Collingwood to recieve the same to move to the MCG.

It is okay for the other Melbourne based clubs to underwrite and pay for Carltons legends stand by playing home games at Optus.

It is okay for the Melbourne big 4 to be gauranteed to be play each other twice every year and to keeps the receipts after they canned the equalisation fund and thereby have a gauranteed financial security whilst the rest of us have to play Freo, Port or Brisbane out at optus.

But we mustn't let the dividend be changed. But this is just market economics and the level playing field. We must all open up borders to free trade but only when it suits us.

 

[choppy]

Originally posted by ruth
Never will happen. Essendon, Carlton and Collingwood would go troppo.

Agree, these scum only vote for things where it advantages themselves.

ie dismantling equalisation fund
ie lets play each other twice every year
ie lets force other clubs to pay for our grandstand
ie lets force opposition supporters to watch thier team play on Pay TV by playing at a sold out Stadium because we recieve extra money just because it is soldout.

 

[servo]

Choppy??

I don't know if you have just used sweeping generalisations to try and support your obviously emotional input here, or whether you actually believe the things you said.

I cannot comment on non SA situations because I am no expert. But in Adelaide, neither Port or the Crows have received any government assistance at all. Neither club owns Football Park. The SANFL have received a very small grant from the government to add 5000 seats to the stadium. But the bulk of the money came from the SANFL. The SANFl own and paid for the stadium themselves.

Brisbane received the majority of the Fitzroy list and some money because they came to an acceptable deal with Fitzroy. It had nothing to do with the fact they were interstate. All clubs had the very same opportunity to make that deal.

WCE??

Why do the interstate clubs have to continually sacrifice to prop up ailing Victorian clubs who, after already receiving support form the other clubs, are still not viable??

All the non Vic clubs except Sydney have paid a minimum $4mill fee, which was distributed amongst the Vic clubs, and which the Vic clubs did not have to pay.

While I am, in principle, against the assistance the AFL has given Sydney and Brisbane over the years, we need a truly national competition so some concessions are needed to promote the game there. But to continually throw money at clubs in Melbourne who cannot, though they have tried valliantly, generate the support they need to stay viable in a national competition is, in business terms, negligent.

Sure business does prop up arms of their empire that lose money but add valuable market identity to their whole operation. But do you really think that the bulk of the Fitzroy fans who went to the footy regularly do no longer attend AFL footy? I know some don't but the bulk of them still attend and many now follow other clubs, not just Brisbane. Fitzroy were not viable and the money that they did generate through membership and sponsorship has not been lost.

If the same were to happen to the Kangaroos or Bulldogs or any other financially struggling club, the result would be similar. If non Vic clubs were tp fold, especially Sydney or Brisbane then the $$ they currently generate would be lost to the sport. That is the difference that Melbourne based fans refuse to even acknowledge.

The responses in this thread and the ones to come from most Melbourne bases posters will demonstrate what I say. Just watch.

 

[Roylion]

Originally posted by servo




Brisbane received the majority of the Fitzroy list and some money because they came to an acceptable deal with Fitzroy. It had nothing to do with the fact they were interstate. All clubs had the very same opportunity to make that deal.

This is incorrect. Brisbane did not receive the majority of the Fitzroy list. They did not come to a suitable deal with Fitzroy as such. Rather their offer to merge with Fitzroy was preferred by Fitzroy's administrator and not Fitzroy's legally elected board. Fitzroy's preferred merger partner was North Melbourne, with whom they had been negotiating with for several months and had reached an all-but-signed agreement. John Kennedy, the Chairman of the AFL Commission also stated that the AFL commission preferred that Fitzroy merge with Brisbane rather than North Melbourne for (and I quote) "strategic reasons." This was ratified by the AFL clubs for the same reasons. North's experience showed that all clubs did not have the same opprtunioty to make that deal, and John Kennedy's statement showed that the decision had everything to with the fact that Brisbane were interstate and in a rugby dominated state to boot.

 

[Crows.ok]

Aside from the fact that Port and Adelaide had to pay $4mil to play in the AFL, and Roos did not, aisde from the fact that these two clubs have NOT received ANY government money (apart from a very minor assistance in adding to the Footy Park stadium capacity, which is money to SANFL, not the two clubs), aside from the fact that these two clubs give back the majority of their turnover back to SANFL, which in turn uses it to prop up SANFL, who in turn provide recruits for all AFL clubs, aside from all this, the POINT is that these two clubs already effectively prop up struggling clubs.

The money that the two clubs generate comes from their supporter base in SA. Virtually none of these supporters, whose money it is in the first place, where the money comes from in the first place, wants the current situation, of too many clubs in Victoria, to continue.

Yet the Kangaroos idiot wants to effectively tax the SA clubs to keep Roos going?

What planet is he ON? What a flaming moron, of the first order.

Sorry WCE2000, there is no way on Gods green earth we want SA support to prop up even more one of the endless list of Vic clubs. They suck up way too much of the mutual pie already. Why on earth would anyone think they deserve even more?

 

[Macca19]

Re: Re: Interesting idea.....

Originally posted by choppy


What about clubs who cant compete on the field. But thats different isn't it. It is okay for other clubs to recieve priority draft picks, to recieve priority pre season draft picks which are used to poach players from clubs.

It is okay for clubs to breach the salary cap and thereby buy success.

It is okay for interstate clubs to receive millions of dollars from governments to upgrade their grounds and facilities thereby leaving their dividends to be spent on palatial administration offices and training facilities.

It is okay for certain Melbourne clubs to receive millions to go to Waverly and then Millions to go to Coloniel and then receive some more when the projections didn't meet targets.

It is okay for Essendon to recieve millions to move from Windy Hill to the MCG and then to Coloniel.

It is okay for Collingwood to recieve the same to move to the MCG.

It is okay for the other Melbourne based clubs to underwrite and pay for Carltons legends stand by playing home games at Optus.

It is okay for the Melbourne big 4 to be gauranteed to be play each other twice every year and to keeps the receipts after they canned the equalisation fund and thereby have a gauranteed financial security whilst the rest of us have to play Freo, Port or Brisbane out at optus.

But we mustn't let the dividend be changed. But this is just market economics and the level playing field. We must all open up borders to free trade but only when it suits us.

choppy your an idiot!!! You have NO idea what the hell you are talking about.
We are talking about taking money that the South Australian clubs EARNED and handing them to struggling clubs. That is outrageous. Its laughable. The way i see it...if the bulldogs, north melbourne and geelong cannot run there club properly, cannot get sponsers, cannot get enough members to make a profit, then stiff sh!t.

Thats the dumbest thing ive ever heard related to footy.
Its the same as saying "Port dont have as much members as Adelaide, so lets take Adelaides waiting list and make them buy a port membership to make the numbers more even"...or saying "Well Fremantle did crap this year, they only won 1 game, so lets take James Hird, Wayne Carey, Matthew Primus, Matthew Lloyd, Andrew Mcleod, Shane Woewodin, Dustin Fletcher and Nathan Buckley so they can be good next year"

Its stupid. Port and Adelaide have to give back 80% of their profits back to the SANFL...so the final amount that goes back to the SA AFL clubs is rarely higher than 250,000 a year. So you want to take our profits which we earned, and which we worked for, to prop up a financially underachieving club just because they have made some basic decisional errors in the last few years.

The most stupidest thing ive ever heard.

 

[choppy]

Servo,

My point is that every club whether they are Victorian or interstate have got some sort of handout whether it is financial, drafting, the way the draw is structured, subsidised grounds, money to move from one ground to another and as soon as North has one bad year financially everyone of these clubs gets all self righteous and basically say "we must not subsidise and offer concessions to anyone and if they cant survive then stuff em"

North have survived the last 20 years against all of the above and has basically received squat handouts. If it was a trully level playing field then I would agree that the competition should say stuff North. Because it is not; because of the above, why are we not entitled to some concessions just as every other AFL club has recieved over the last 10 years.

I did not here anyone complaining last year when StKilda recieved a priority draft pick (36 months after playing in a GF!!)and the millions to move from Waverly to Coloniel.

The "we can't let North have anything syndrome" is due to the jealousy of our onfield sucess and continually finished top 4 without receiving anything.

It trully grates the 'money' clubs that a club with basically no money and no facilities can have success by playing within the rules. They want to return it to the days when money and power buy on field success and not the recruiting, development of players and passion for the jumper.

 

[Worm4]

Re: Re: Interesting idea.....

Originally posted by choppy


It is okay for the other Melbourne based clubs to underwrite and pay for Carltons legends stand by playing home games at Optus.

Just as not to confuse anyone on this particular point, the Melbourne based clubs are not funding the Legends stand at Carlton. To give everyone a bit of history, Carlton had an agreement with the AFL to play no less than 20 games at Princes Park each year and supported by the Melbourne City Council who subleases the ground to the Carlton Football Club. Back in the early 90's when the agreement was made and agreed upon by all participating shareholders ( all clubs with the exception of Port Adelaide FC ), the ground was shared with Hawthorn, then the now defunct Fitzroy, and finally Footscray. Once Colonial Stadium was built and seduced Footscray away from Princes Park, it became apparent that only 9 games would be played at Princes Park each and Carlton sued the AFL for breach of contract under the Trade Practices Act. A successful proxy held by all shareholders involved in the initial agreement meant that the AFL had to re-imburse Carlton FC for loss of gate receipts due to their breach of contract. It amounts to 7 yearly payments of 2 million dollars for a total of $14 million.
I guess at the end of the day, the Managing Director's of each club have a right to be a bit annoyed at the way the AFL has made promises and failed to keep them ( but isn't that the case all the time these days ! ), and in no way was it a deception theory on Carlton's behalf. The fact that the money will co-incidently pay off a $10 million dollar stand is irrelavent.

The fact that you chose to use the word "underwrite" seems to be misleading. Perhaps you should have used the words "subsidised the gate receipts from Princes park due to the AFL's inability to uphold a contract signed upon by the people in charge of our club " !

 

[Crows.ok]

Originally posted by choppy
Servo,

My point is that every club whether they are Victorian or interstate have got some sort of handout whether it is financial, drafting, the way the draw is structured, subsidised grounds, money to move from one ground to another

Choppy,

Power and Crows have not had any sort of subsidy whatsoever. None.

The only subsidy involved went the other way, two lots of $4mil license fee the SANFL had to pay to Vic clubs who did not have to pay.

Even when it comes down to draft "concessions" these two clubs supposedly got ... wake up and smell the roses, choppy, the players in question were SA players from the SANFL in the first bloody place. Sheesh!

Why on earth, what possible harebrained reason, could anyone ever come up with why these two clubs should support Kangaroos to keep going?

There is simply no reason. To hell with you.

 

[Dave]

Choppy, where have I ever said priority draft picks were ok? Where have I said it's ok to breach the salary cap? And if it's ok to breach the salary cap why are there penalties attached? And did the clubs that took the moratorium also cheat, or was that ok?

Since when does what a government does have anything to do with whether other clubs should be subsidised?

Who did Essendon "recieve millions" from to move from Windy Hill to the MCG? They certainly didn't get it from the AFL. Maybe they got it from the larger crowds that went to see them play. Shocking, shouldn't be allowed.

If you've read any of my other posts you'll see I've called for a 30 round season to end the unequal draw.

I've been reasonably sympathetic towards Norths plight up until now, but if you reckon my club is nothing but scum then you can well and truly go and get f*cked.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by WCE2000
there was already a topic on this called "Beyond a Joke" and this was the reply i gave:

Sorry, didn't see it

 

[sainter]

Originally posted by Dave
I've been reasonably sympathetic towards Norths plight up until now, but if you reckon my club is nothing but scum then you can well and truly go and get f*cked.

Well said Dave!

Originally posted by choppy
Servo,

My point is that every club whether they are Victorian or interstate have got some sort of handout whether it is financial, drafting, the way the draw is structured, subsidised grounds, money to move from one ground to another and as soon as North has one bad year financially everyone of these clubs gets all self righteous and basically say "we must not subsidise and offer concessions to anyone and if they cant survive then stuff em"

North have survived the last 20 years against all of the above and has basically received squat handouts. If it was a trully level playing field then I would agree that the competition should say stuff North. Because it is not; because of the above, why are we not entitled to some concessions just as every other AFL club has recieved over the last 10 years.

I did not here anyone complaining last year when StKilda recieved a priority draft pick (36 months after playing in a GF!!)and the millions to move from Waverly to Coloniel.

Choppy,

Don't let facts in the way of a good story.

The priority draft pick was introduced for a similar reason to that of the draft and the salary cap and that is to promote an even competition. I realise it is being reviewed but I would have thought that a kangaroo supporter like yourself would think assisting the bottom sides would be a positive, considering it was clubs like the Kangaroos, Footscray, Hawthorn and St Kilda who struggled for many years because they were not able to compete financially (and hence on the field) with the other clubs. Dan25 constantly goes on about our 6 consecutive wooden spoons from 1897-1902 and how pathetic we were. What he neglects to mention was the financial position and stability of the club at the time. There were far more successful VFA clubs at the time, however we were accepted into the new competition on account of our geographical location (south of the Yarra). My point is that the clubs are not all on even footing and never will be. Giving advantages to clubs that struggle on the field is fair enough, provided all teams are able to remain financially sound. Besides, the Kangaroos did well enough out of the 10 year rule.

As for St Kilda receiving millions of dollars from the AFL for moving from Waverley to Colonial Stadium, please show me where exactly this is recorded in our financial statements please. You will probably not find it because we did not receive a significant compensation pay-out at all. We did negotiate to have our membership numbers underwritten to the corresponding figure we had at Waverley. (runs out this year or next year) If Colonial Stadium was not built, we would still be playing at Waverley and would not still be feeling the effects of losing many of our supporters and members in the South East and even our heartland in the Southern Suburbs.

As for never receiving handouts, I believe you neglected to mention the fact that your games in Sydney were underwritten by the AFL. I'm not sure about the extent to which the AFL assisted but you and I sure as hell know that the Kangaroos have received their share of assistance as well.

There are times in our history that have been so precarious, we have been lucky to survive. I do know how hard it is to take when the media and the general public are always talking about the survival of your club. I sincerely hope the Kangaroos can survive along with all of the current Victorian teams in danger. I also respect your passion but think that you should grow up a little. The supporters of other clubs are not the enemy here.

 

[Macca19]

Originally posted by choppy
Servo,

My point is that every club whether they are Victorian or interstate have got some sort of handout whether it is financial, drafting, the way the draw is structured, subsidised grounds, money to move from one ground to another and as soon as North has one bad year financially everyone of these clubs gets all self righteous and basically say "we must not subsidise and offer concessions to anyone and if they cant survive then stuff em"

You are wrong again. YOU are saying Port and Adelaide should give up their profits and give them to North Melbourne. That is out and out WRONG. Now if the AFL took THEIR money and gave it to the Kangaroos then fine, but you dont go taking other clubs profits and giving it to another club. Why should i go and buy a Port Power membership when the money is going to go to North?? I might as well go and just buy a Norht Melbuorne membership.

 

[Dave]

Sainter, good post.