Melbourne vs North - The Battle For The Future

[SweetLeftFoot]

You don't even understand the complexity of the stadium deal thing. Esseentially, we are paying off YOUR share of that bill but when its over, all clubs will ahve equal ownership.

 

[.Shotties.]

I'm in no way saying it's unfair on Sydney but as I said above, I'd like to know what differentiates the payouts given in the set of circumstances where Sydney's assistance can be refered to as parasitic. As 1jasonoz highlighted in his quote, the AFL admitted that the entire venture was woefully underfunded and mishandled but still millons of dollars came out of the club and it's owners.

 

[1jasonoz]

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.

I'm still waiting for you to provide me proof of the $2 million per year in licencing fees the Swans were paying; the only thing i can see is the outstanding $2 million Willesee group owed the AFL for the Sydney Swans licence which was waived by the other clubs.

 

[.Shotties.]

I'm still waiting...

So am I and I put forward my questions first.

 

[1jasonoz]

I'm in no way saying it's unfair on Sydney but as I said above, I'd like to know what differentiates the payouts given in the set of circumstances where Sydney's assistance can be refered to as parasitic. As 1jasonoz highlighted in his quote, the AFL admitted that the entire venture was woefully underfunded and mishandled but still millons of dollars came out of the club and it's owners.

Now you are deflecting from providing proof of the $2 million per year in annual licencing fees you claimed your club was paying?

 

[skipper kelly]

the norf nuffies back onto their 2nd favourite subject.

 

[.Shotties.]

Now you are deflecting from providing proof of the $2 million per year in annual licencing fees you claimed your club was paying?

Is that what it's called when someone makes a claim and then refuses to address questions on it from that point on?

 

[1jasonoz]

So am I and I put forward my questions first.

To whom did you put what questions and why does it stop you from providing proof to me of your claim that the Swans were paying a $2million per year licence fee?

 

[1jasonoz]

Is that what it's called when someone makes a claim and then refuses to address questions on it from that point on?

What claim and who are you talking about?

 

[skipper kelly]

Dont do it shotties.

 

[Tas]

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.

Dr Troll deliberately comes in and baits North supporters and has a crack at the club and they are daft enough to respond to him let alone having a crack back, then people like you come in and get defensive because of taunts back.

It is getting ****ing old, fast.

Swans have had issues over the years, the AFL put a lot of effort and money into buying the club and getting things right. Our club is significantly disadvantaged because the current stadiums do not suit our supporter base so they help us out.

No amount of dick swinging will change the fact clubs have issues and you can't always resolve them without the help of the body that dictates most of what you can do.

I'm just getting tired of most threads being de-railed by guys who want to turn every thread into a Bay 13 s**t slinging match. If you want to blame anyone, blame Dr Troll for starting it.

 

[.Shotties.]

To whom did you put what questions and why does it stop you from providing proof to me of your claim that the Swans were paying a $2million per year licence fee?

It doesn't stop me, however I take great amusement in being constantly accused of deflection while people pick and choose their responses.

Aside from that, I've already stated I'm unable to do so via the internet as there are no electronic sources available. I did, however, provide you with two seperate sources that you should be able to find with ease.

 

[.Shotties.]

then people like you

People like me? Racist.

 

[1jasonoz]

It doesn't stop me, however I take great amusement in being constantly accused of deflection while people pick and choose their responses.

Aside from that, I've already stated I'm unable to do so via the internet as there are no electronic sources available. I did, however, provide you with two seperate sources that you should be able to find with ease.

however I take great amusement in being constantly accused of deflection while people pick and choose their responses.

What are you going on about?

I cam into a thread about North melbourne and Melbourne, saw a Swans supporters claiming his team was paying a $2 million per year licence fee-i asked you a very simple question what $2 million per year licence fee were/are you referring to?

I pointed out that the Swans had an outstanding $2 million owing to the AFL from the Willesee group buying the licence off the AFL, but this was not an annual $2 million fee as you claimed.

Aside from that, I've already stated I'm unable to do so via the internet as there are no electronic sources available.

There are plenty of sources about the history of the Swans, just none that supports your claim of a $2 million per year licence fee as it never existed.

I did, however, provide you with two seperate sources that you should be able to find with ease

No you provided me with a link to a book to buy, and another showing nothing to do with your claim of a $2 million per year licence fee. Your link stated the remaining $2 million from the Swans licence fee (since they had bought it from the AFL) was waived by the other clubs.

 

[windsock]

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?

It was a figure left over from the license fee the private owner (Edelsten) owed. Take note of who owed that license fee BTW - Edelsten, not the Swans. He apparently met about two thirds of his commitment to buy the club off the AFL. None of that was Swans money.

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?

Firstly, I didn't say you were parasitic so dunno why it was in a response to me.

But take a look at the ASD funding the Swans have received (it's in the annual report on the AFL website). They received about $800K last year, less than North but:

• We don't have a member of the executive team - and at least one other full-time AFL staffer - looking after the welfare of football in our heartland.
  
• And nor did we receive $300K for our marketing and comms team (this figure is rolled into the AFL's own marketing budget).
  
• We don't have prime time TVC slots paid for by the AFL imploring punters to get along to our games. Lord knows what that costs.
  
• On footy matters, we don't get priority access to players who grew up in our local area. That's the rule that has allowed you to pick up about eight players on your list (including your captain).

The only thing you might not be able to look up as fact is that $300K for the marketing and comms team. I'm sure if you cared to ask, your club would reply in the affirmative.

 

[windsock]

so, shotties, tell us more about this annual $2m fee

 

[Doctor Jolly]

I'm just getting tired of most threads being de-railed by guys who want to turn every thread into a Bay 13 s**t slinging match. If you want to blame anyone, blame Dr Troll for starting it.

I have never once mentioned the swans in this thread. Its you North supporters who go off in a knee jerk reaction whenever someone disagree's with your rose coloured glasses view of your club which is in serious poo.