Melbourne vs North - The Battle For The Future

[Hearts to hearts]

Wow, imagine Sydney posters finding their way on here.

It was a fun game, as we all would have hoped, and with all the injured players on both sides to come back things are looking very bright for future contests.

One of the radio commentators said it was like watching footy on a visit to the Tiwi Islands or somewhere like that - guys just loving what they are doing and having fun. Nice to win but proud to be part of it either way.

 

[.Shotties.]

you must have sandy earholes of you don't know of the financial and draft support the swans have received over the past 30 years.

Go ahead then, detail the financial handouts Sydney has apparently gotten for the last 30 years. We'll see how they stack up against 2m a year in licencing fees.

 

[1jasonoz]

Go ahead then, detail the financial handouts Sydney has apparently gotten for the last 30 years. We'll see how they stack up against 2m a year in licencing fees.

What $2m a year in licencing fees are you talking about?

 

[.Shotties.]

What $2m a year in licencing fees are you talking about?

Up till the other clubs voted on it in October 1992 the Swans were paying around 2m in licence fees a year. The Crows and Eagles were paying similar fees IIRC.

 

[Hannabal]

Considering some of the decisions made under Laidley, including trading two first rounders for Hay, North's list is remarkably good moving forward.

 

[GarnerSmash]

Considering some of the decisions made under Laidley, including trading two first rounders for Hay, North's list is remarkably good moving forward.

That's probably got something to do with why North supporters are so keen to talk about our list. After years of getting very little from the draft (Lance Piacone, Cameron Thurley and Casey Green come to mind) we now have a list to genuinely get excited about.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

Considering some of the decisions made under Laidley, including trading two first rounders for Hay, North's list is remarkably good moving forward.

Indeed. Though the one that really stings for me is Jesse Smith. So unlucky. He'd be 24 now and just peaking. Such a classy player when (rarely) fit.

 

[Demonheart]

Indeed. Though the one that really stings for me is Jesse Smith. So unlucky. He'd be 24 now and just peaking. Such a classy player when (rarely) fit.

What do you think are the chances that the Saints medical team will have any more success with him?

 

[GarnerSmash]

What do you think are the chances that the Saints medical team will have any more success with him?

None: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/jesse-smith-bows-to-injury/story-e6frf9jf-1225884993393

 

[cannons]

Indeed. Though the one that really stings for me is Jesse Smith. So unlucky. He'd be 24 now and just peaking. Such a classy player when (rarely) fit.

Yeah, you have to feel sorry for the guy.

All the talent in the world, but it just seems as if his body doesn't have what it takes to handle the rigours associated with AFL football.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

What do you think are the chances that the Saints medical team will have any more success with him?

None. In all seriouslyness, there's nothing the Saints team nor any other club medicos could have done for Jesse we hadn't already tried.

I think Jesse's hope was that a change of scenery would provide a change of luck: stranger things have happened.

But geez yeah, having him bursting off half back and breaking zones with deadly long accurate kicking. Sigh.

 

[windsock]

Up till the other clubs voted on it in October 1992 the Swans were paying around 2m in licence fees a year. The Crows and Eagles were paying similar fees IIRC.

You have made that up. Let's play your game - show us the evidence of this.

My understanding is this: When the Swans became a private entity - a move made to save the club because the AFL was running out of money to prop them up - the agreement was that Geoff Edelsten would pay a licence fee to the AFL. I'm not sure if he ever met that commitment completely (I could be wrong)

When the club was again in a dire financial position in 1993 or 94, and clubs like Carlton were circling to play their away games in Sydney in exchange for their playing list, the AFL and the rest of competition agreed to help them through their financial difficulties because they realised the strategic importance of the club. That's when Alan Schwab, Ron Joseph, Ron Barassi and other AFL funded or supported appointments came into being. That's been happening ever since.

IIRC West Coast, Brisbane and Adelaide paid a $4m upfront licence fee when they came in. I think Freo and Port did too.

 

[.Shotties.]

You have made that up. Let's play your game - show us the evidence of this.

Sure, its in the official club history on the Swans website. If you're really keen you could try "The Convert". It's mostly about a league fans switch to Aussie Rules but also gives a good, short summary of the forced move and early conditions the Swans faced up here.

My understanding is this: When the Swans became a private entity - a move made to save the club because the AFL was running out of money to prop them up - the agreement was that Geoff Edelsten would pay a licence fee to the AFL. I'm not sure if he ever met that commitment completely (I could be wrong).

Out of curiosity, when the clubs voted to waive Sydney's operating costs for 1992 including the 2m fee, do you think that was a fee over a decade old that had passed through seperate ownership groups or that it had just been randomly imposed in 1992?

So... How much total are we looking at in AFL assistance for the Swans? Backed, of course.

 

[windsock]

Sure, its in the official club history on the Swans website. If you're really keen you could try "The Convert". It's mostly about a league fans switch to Aussie Rules but also gives a good, short summary of the forced move and early conditions the Swans faced up here.


Out of curiosity, when the clubs voted to waive Sydney's operating costs for 1992 including the 2m fee, do you think that was a fee over a decade old that had passed through seperate ownership groups or that it had just been randomly imposed in 1992?

So... How much total are we looking at in AFL assistance for the Swans? Backed, of course.

Just had a scan of the history. I see nothing an annual $2m license fee. I did see this though:

It was a momentous meeting on October 21st 1992. At 7.33pm, the Club’s survival was ensured when the other clubs voted that the AFL should waive the Swans’ outstanding license fee (almost $2 million), provide working capital to the club for three years, and award priority draft choices.

 

[.Shotties.]

Just had a scan of the history. I see nothing an annual $2m license fee. I did see this though:

It was a momentous meeting on October 21st 1992. At 7.33pm, the Club’s survival was ensured when the other clubs voted that the AFL should waive the Swans’ outstanding license fee (almost $2 million), provide working capital to the club for three years, and award priority draft choices.

Which brings me back to the question, do you think that was a licence fee over a decade old that had passed through multiple seperate ownership groups or a fee that had just randomly been issued in 1992?

I can't help but note that in all your demanding for evidence you still haven't put up a solid number for the amount Sydney have recieved over the years. Further to this, why is assistance given to Sydney seen as parasitic when the conditions they were forced into during the move were well beyond a bad stadium deal yet the payout given to clubs over Etihad is seen as merely evening the keel?

 

[1jasonoz]

Up till the other clubs voted on it in October 1992 the Swans were paying around 2m in licence fees a year. The Crows and Eagles were paying similar fees IIRC.

Got proof of this by chance?

 

[.Shotties.]

Got proof of this by chance?

Few posts up. This could help your cause too.

 

[1jasonoz]

Few posts up. This could help your cause too.

I like others have yet to receive any proof from you that the Swans were paying a $2 million per year licence fee; all you have done is linked to a book and repeated the same statement again.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

SWans weren't paying $2m a year. They had oustanding on their $2m license fee payable by Willesse etc when they went down the tubes in the early 90s.

The AFL waived this. But I'm sure it wasn't an annual impost.

 

[.Shotties.]

I like others have yet to receive any proof from you that the Swans were paying a $2 million per year licence fee; all you have done is linked to a book and repeated the same statement again.

And I've yet to recieve any hard numbers. Just vauge references to monstrous amounts of money. Not only that, but a relatively simple question hasn't been answered, so we're going around in circles here.

The AFL financial reports of that time aren't online but the financial struggles that managed to almost bankrupt two sets of owners are detailed in the books above. Moreso In The Blood than The Convert but they're both decent enough summaries of the conditions that managed to bankrupt the club twice.

 

[1jasonoz]

SWans weren't paying $2m a year. They had oustanding on their $2m license fee payable by Willesse etc when they went down the tubes in the early 90s.

The AFL waived this. But I'm sure it wasn't an annual impost.

Yep!

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2101

SYDNEY

1) In 1980, John Hennessy delivered a confidential report to the VFL entitled "The Sydney Solution: VFL at the Crossroads." In it, he projects that a team in Sydney could expect to make a $750,000 surplus within three years. Allen Aylett, who had long harboured a desire to see the VFL become a national competition, used the report as the basis for the relocation of South Melbourne to Sydney.

2) The Swans were launched with the help of a $400,000 loan, negotiated by the VFL. Although attendances were better then expected, the Swans'financial performance was very poor. By the end of 1982, the club wrote to CIGS Nominees- the company that provided the credit, seeking a deferment of the loan. By May 1983, the Swans had accrued a debt of $1.5 million, forcing the VFL to take control of the club.

3)In 1984, things began to turn around. Financial problems eased and the club won 6 of its first 9 games. In round 10, 26,000 fans attended a a games against Carlton. However, by the end of the year, the club has slumped to 10th. A collection of Sydney identities began to pursue avenues to save the club. They were paticularly enticed by the concept of private ownership as existed in the USA. They began discussions with the VFL.

4) Geoffery Edelsten and Basil Sellers tenderd offers with the VFL. As Edelsten continued to up the ante in a bid to gain the franchise, Sellers pulled out, convinced that the club could not break even. In addition, the Age newspaper approached the VFL with some damning information regarding Edelsten's business dealings. Edelsten had been under investigation from the ATO, the Coporate Affairs Commission has wound up two of his companies and were prosecuting five of his ten companies for failure to lodge documents. It is difficult to fathom, why the VFL sold the Swans to a man whose management of his other businesses could be considered sloppy, at best. Nevertheless, the Swans were sold to Edelsten for $6.5 million in July 1985.

5) In May 1988, Powerplay (Edelsten's comany) and its subsidiaries (including the Swans) went into liquidation after Telecom cut the office's phones. The Sydney licence was sold back to the VFL for $10. A consortium of local businessman, including Mike Willessee, joins forces to buy the club.

6) In 1990, Swans players are forced to take 20% pay cuts. In 1993, the consortium goes into liquidation forcing the AFL, to once again, take control of the club. In 1994, the club reverted to its present structure.

Not suprisingly, the initial projections of $750,000 surpluses failed to materialise. The relocation of South Melbourne is just one of a litany of stuff-ups made by the VFL/AFL, because they were guided by ideology, rather then common sense. Allen Aylett later admitted, that the scheme was insufficiently funded from the start.

 

[Tas]

Shotties, this isn't the thread to have the typical Swans vs North shitfest, take it somewhere else. Take Dr Troll with you on the way out.

 

[1jasonoz]

And I've yet to recieve any hard numbers. Just vauge references to monstrous amounts of money. Not only that, but a relatively simple question hasn't been answered, so we're going around in circles here.

The AFL financial reports of that time aren't online but the financial struggles that managed to almost bankrupt two sets of owners are detailed in the books above. Moreso In The Blood than The Convert but they're both decent enough summaries of the conditions that managed to bankrupt the club twice.

Only because you will not show me proof of the Swans paying an annual $2 million licencing fee as you claimed!!!

 

[Kimbo]

The equation is simple. There is no place for clubs living hand to mouth every day. The only success you've had was based around the greatest player ever on your list. I dont see anyone on your list even half as good. Almost complete lack of decent key position players, an average coach, very limited support staff, and the constant threat of bankruptsy and having to sell home games to stay afloat.

9th is a good finish, and you should cherish years like this.

Righteo, thanks for asking my question about why you predict, so confidently, that North will finish 9th again in 2011 and Melbourne 5-8th.

You're clearly just trying to get a rise out of NM supporters, or you're simply not capable of providing and informed, intelligent set of reasons for your assessment. Or both, which is my guess.

The equation is simple. There is no place for posters living foot in mouth every day. Almost a complete lack of reasoning ability, an average response, very limited capacity to go beyond superficial stereotypes, and the constant threat of idiocy and having to taunt opposition supporters to stay involved.

Such is BF.

 

[.Shotties.]

Shotties, this isn't the thread to have the typical Swans vs North shitfest, take it somewhere else. Take Dr Troll with you on the way out.

I'm not slagging North here. I'm asking for hard numbers on what these massive concessions were and why they're any different to excess payments for a s**t stadium deal when arguably these conditions were much harsher.

Apparently it's easily found and answered but thus far all I've been getting is people screaming "proof" at me over whilst ignoring what I've been asking.