Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Thread X

[Old Campaigner]

Good post, I agree 100%. I hadn't thought of the issue of developing younger players but if a kid drafted to a poorer club (something he has zero control over) has less chance of making it to, say 150 games than an identical kid drafted to a rich club then that is something that absolutely must be ironed out. Even measures supposed to equalize the comp like the draft and salary cap are a bit useless when a club like Collingwood can afford an army of talent scouts to find the absolute best talent available at later picks than a club like the Bulldogs can with just a couple of recruiters. And the salary cap is less effective when a club can give a player non-cash incentives like better facilities, better staff, better shot at winning a flag and a longer career than a poorer club with shit facilities and second rate coaches.

People here get angry at talk of greater equalisation but surely they realise it does the game no favours if the onfield competition is merely an extension of an off field battle over who has the most profitable pokies venues.

 

[Whispering_Jack]

Certainly the stadium deals are a real problem for the smaller clubs and the AFL have to do something about that. The gap between what some clubs can earn on their home games (WCE, Freo, Ade, Port and Geelong for example) and what the smaller clubs can earn at Etihad is a huge issue.

 

[Tas]

Good post, I agree 100%. I hadn't thought of the issue of developing younger players but if a kid drafted to a poorer club (something he has zero control over) has less chance of making it to, say 150 games than an identical kid drafted to a rich club then that is something that absolutely must be ironed out. Even measures supposed to equalize the comp like the draft and salary cap are a bit useless when a club like Collingwood can afford an army of talent scouts to find the absolute best talent available at later picks than a club like the Bulldogs can with just a couple of recruiters. And the salary cap is less effective when a club can give a player non-cash incentives like better facilities, better staff, better shot at winning a flag and a longer career than a poorer club with shit facilities and second rate coaches.

People here get angry at talk of greater equalisation but surely they realise it does the game no favours if the onfield competition is merely an extension of an off field battle over who has the most profitable pokies venues.

It is something the AFLPA is becoming more and more vocal about, the biggest variance in spending is in youth recruitment and development. It will never stop bomb outs because kids don't make it for a lot of reasons, mostly struggling to become professional athletes as young kids. Richmond went through a horrific period because they didn't have the resources to recruit properly and didn't have the resources to get the most out of their recruits.

Everyone knew Richmond would bounce back eventually, because they have a large supporter base. There are no free rides for clubs with smaller supporter bases, they rely on their core business which is football to compete and because of their supporter size alone do not have the resources to invest a whole lot in non-football revenue and are under the pump to throw all their productivity gains into football department spending our of fear of not falling too far behind and struggling to be competitive.

This has made it significantly harder for the smaller clubs to invest in non-football revenue. We have made some significant profitability gains in recent years but have had to put the vast majority of that into football department spending to keep up and we don't have the same extent of non-football revenue which is inflated by what other clubs are throwing into football departments via non-football revenue.

A number of smaller clubs have undertaken life-threatening debt levels to invest in pokies to try and keep up, it is a horrendous situation. Dogs almost keeled over and died without AFL intervention because their development was being stalled by the council. Had the ALP put through pokie reforms under Gillard it would have killed a number of clubs and financially crippled many others.

It is not a good position we are in and people who are fighting against it to protect their minor advantage are being short-sighted. I don't agree with taking more money from blockbusters or taking money from other clubs, our problems are resolvable without that.

 

[BigJoeD_]

It is something the AFLPA is becoming more and more vocal about, the biggest variance in spending is in youth recruitment and development. It will never stop bomb outs because kids don't make it for a lot of reasons, mostly struggling to become professional athletes as young kids. Richmond went through a horrific period because they didn't have the resources to recruit properly and didn't have the resources to get the most out of their recruits.

Everyone knew Richmond would bounce back eventually, because they have a large supporter base. There are no free rides for clubs with smaller supporter bases, they rely on their core business which is football to compete and because of their supporter size alone do not have the resources to invest a whole lot in non-football revenue and are under the pump to throw all their productivity gains into football department spending our of fear of not falling too far behind and struggling to be competitive.

This has made it significantly harder for the smaller clubs to invest in non-football revenue. We have made some significant profitability gains in recent years but have had to put the vast majority of that into football department spending to keep up and we don't have the same extent of non-football revenue which is inflated by what other clubs are throwing into football departments via non-football revenue.

A number of smaller clubs have undertaken life-threatening debt levels to invest in pokies to try and keep up, it is a horrendous situation. Dogs almost keeled over and died without AFL intervention because their development was being stalled by the council. Had the ALP put through pokie reforms under Gillard it would have killed a number of clubs and financially crippled many others.

It is not a good position we are in and people who are fighting against it to protect their minor advantage are being short-sighted. I don't agree with taking more money from blockbusters or taking money from other clubs, our problems are resolvable without that.

I understand where you are coming from, I just don't believe your argument re youth development stacks up. Melbourne aside, is there any real evidence that the poorer clubs are struggling to develop their players? Are the richer clubs perennial premiership contenders?

I am actually pro equalisation to some degree, and your points re the stadium deals makes sense. I just don't see capping footy department spending as the answer - clubs go to real effort to ensure their training and recruitment philosophies are of world standard - one club gains an advantage or finds new methods/technologies, the rest quickly catch on. It is how the code evolves. North's much spruiked fitness boss would be a good example.

The last thing we want is for 18 bland, socialistic franchises.

With an uneven draw, relief of some degree for the smaller clubs needs to come from the clubs/league benefitting from the blockbusters - from the gate and also via the TV exposure, which in turn contributes to greater sponsorship income.

Firstly, let's start with the stadium deals.

 

[Tas]

I understand where you are coming from, I just don't believe your argument re youth development stacks up. Melbourne aside, is there any real evidence that the poorer clubs are struggling to develop their players? Are the richer clubs perennial premiership contenders?

You do not need to look for spectacular fails, something as simple as our young players taking 2, 3 or 4 years to come good vs Collingwood's kids taking a lot less, last year we put on two additional staff just to focus on the kids, another 2 this year. Players taking longer to develop can cause issues with list management, we have had to de-list some promising guys because they haven't come on quick enough, been on the list for too long but haven't quite made the grade.

That slow speed of youth development puts a lot more stress on your senior depth, impacts your depth and how you can complete when you have injuries or drop in form from key players. This impacts your ability to be a finalist vs not making it.

I am actually pro equalisation to some degree, and your points re the stadium deals makes sense. I just don't see capping footy department spending as the answer - clubs go to real effort to ensure their training and recruitment philosophies are of world standard - one club gains an advantage or finds new methods/technologies, the rest quickly catch on. It is how the code evolves. North's much spruiked fitness boss would be a good example.

Which one? Buttifant was at our club in the 90s, he was poached by Collingwood. We have already lost some fitness staff because we couldn't afford to pay them what others were prepared to offer them. We have held on to Saunders because he is one of the highest paid sports scientists in the AFL and our structure appealed to him with Scott and his sport-science approach, most coaches would be reluctant to give a sports scientist that level of influence.

The last thing we want is for 18 bland, socialistic franchises.

I don't get how limiting spending within the means of the AFL makes for 'bland franchies'. If someone can explain how it does I would appreciate it. You would have to say the vast majority of innovative ideas have come from clubs that didn't have two bits to rub together. I think there will always be room for innovation and different clubs will appeal to different demographics.

With an uneven draw, relief of some degree for the smaller clubs needs to come from the clubs/league benefitting from the blockbusters - from the gate and also via the TV exposure, which in turn contributes to greater sponsorship income.

Firstly, let's start with the stadium deals.

I do not agree with taxing blockbusters, they contribute a lot of revenue in the form of broadcasting rights revenue. AFL can choose to divide that up unevenly so the clubs who do not get the spoils from the gate receive the spoils from the broadcasting distribution.

However, what needs to end is the almost guaranteed fixturing of home and away games between the larger clubs. Which was the last year we played twice? Between Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton and Richmond on a good year we will play 2 of them twice, on an average year just one of them twice. Sometimes you get the one off games as a home game, other times not. But, having access to big away games also helps to build up your own supporter base and get them more motivated to attend football games.

For decades Collingwood has been given an ideal draw for maintaining and growing a larger supporter base, with access to more good quality games at better time slots. All clubs have to be equally invested in the direction we are going.

I do agree the fundamental weakness is the stadium deals in Melbourne, however, it is also one of the hardest things to change. MCC will never release the AFL from it's contract and the owners of the Docklands want a fortune to end their agreement prematurely. I don't see a solution in that area for some time to come.

I want to avoid creating a welfare state, most people who go on welfare to survive get stuck on welfare and find it hard to get free of it. I don't think it is any easier for football clubs if they are just given enough to keep their head above water while they are denied the means to get themselves out of that hole.

 

[Old Campaigner]

The last thing we want is for 18 bland, socialistic franchises.

There is more than enough variety due to the human factor that this will never be an issue unless training regimes are legislated by the AFL. What a fairer system would do is allow clubs that do **** up royally to get back on track sooner(assuming they learn from their mistakes and don't do a Richmond and be mediocre for decades), rather than having a Melbourne-like period of many years repeating rebuilds because their youth couldn't develop into good players.

I want to avoid creating a welfare state, most people who go on welfare to survive get stuck on welfare and find it hard to get free of it. I don't think it is any easier for football clubs if they are just given enough to keep their head above water while they are denied the means to get themselves out of that hole.

Exactly right. What I think needs to be done is a large amount of funding be dished up to the poorer clubs and used to bring them closer to the level of the richer clubs in terms of off field income like pubs or whatever. That would put them on a sustainable footing for the future and enable them to invest in football department spending the way a richer club might. I don't think fixing stadium deals alone will solve the problem but it should be one of the reforms.

I think it is important for Bomber fans to recognise that we could be on the cusp of digging ourselves into a very deep hole should infractions be handed out and the membership count falls off as a result. It could well be in our interests one day to be in favour of greater equality because there is no way we can predict what the future might hold. Something like infractions or anti-pokie legislation could ruin the club and it would be nice if we had some sort of safety net should we need it.

 

[BigJoeD_]

You do not need to look for spectacular fails, something as simple as our young players taking 2, 3 or 4 years to come good vs Collingwood's kids taking a lot less, last year we put on two additional staff just to focus on the kids, another 2 this year. Players taking longer to develop can cause issues with list management, we have had to de-list some promising guys because they haven't come on quick enough, been on the list for too long but haven't quite made the grade.

That slow speed of youth development puts a lot more stress on your senior depth, impacts your depth and how you can complete when you have injuries or drop in form from key players. This impacts your ability to be a finalist vs not making it.



Which one? Buttifant was at our club in the 90s, he was poached by Collingwood. We have already lost some fitness staff because we couldn't afford to pay them what others were prepared to offer them. We have held on to Saunders because he is one of the highest paid sports scientists in the AFL and our structure appealed to him with Scott and his sport-science approach, most coaches would be reluctant to give a sports scientist that level of influence.



I don't get how limiting spending within the means of the AFL makes for 'bland franchies'. If someone can explain how it does I would appreciate it. You would have to say the vast majority of innovative ideas have come from clubs that didn't have two bits to rub together. I think there will always be room for innovation and different clubs will appeal to different demographics.




I do not agree with taxing blockbusters, they contribute a lot of revenue in the form of broadcasting rights revenue. AFL can choose to divide that up unevenly so the clubs who do not get the spoils from the gate receive the spoils from the broadcasting distribution.

However, what needs to end is the almost guaranteed fixturing of home and away games between the larger clubs. Which was the last year we played twice? Between Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton and Richmond on a good year we will play 2 of them twice, on an average year just one of them twice. Sometimes you get the one off games as a home game, other times not. But, having access to big away games also helps to build up your own supporter base and get them more motivated to attend football games.

For decades Collingwood has been given an ideal draw for maintaining and growing a larger supporter base, with access to more good quality games at better time slots. All clubs have to be equally invested in the direction we are going.

I do agree the fundamental weakness is the stadium deals in Melbourne, however, it is also one of the hardest things to change. MCC will never release the AFL from it's contract and the owners of the Docklands want a fortune to end their agreement prematurely. I don't see a solution in that area for some time to come.

I want to avoid creating a welfare state, most people who go on welfare to survive get stuck on welfare and find it hard to get free of it. I don't think it is any easier for football clubs if they are just given enough to keep their head above water while they are denied the means to get themselves out of that hole.

At the risk of sounding patronising, by capping footy dept spending you are wanting to reduce the potential to improve the game because you can't afford to keep up. Investing as much as possible in PD should be non-negotiable. The better the spectacle, the more revenue (directly and indirectly) all clubs generate.

North, Port and WB all have excellent recent form in this area.

If Saunders is as good as advertised, he is worth every cent. Do we want these people pissing off to other codes? I thought North made a record profit this year, without pokie assistance?

I agree totally regarding the draw - it was my main argument and avenue for equalisation.

 

[yaco55]

At the risk of sounding patronising, by capping footy dept spending you are wanting to reduce the potential to improve the game because you can't afford to keep up. Investing as much as possible in PD should be non-negotiable. The better the spectacle, the more revenue (directly and indirectly) all clubs generate.

North, Port and WB all have excellent recent form in this area.

If Saunders is as good as advertised, he is worth every cent. Do we want these people pissing off to other codes? I thought North made a record profit this year, without pokie assistance?

I agree totally regarding the draw - it was my main argument and avenue for equalisation.

I for one would cap Footy department spending. You could give each club another $10m for footy department spending, which clubs would gladly take,even though they couldn't justify spending this money. There would be waste galore, and I suspect even now there is waste. Clubs continuing to ramp up spending on their footy department will end up being a cancer in the game.

 

[Tas]

At the risk of sounding patronising, by capping footy dept spending you are wanting to reduce the potential to improve the game because you can't afford to keep up. Investing as much as possible in PD should be non-negotiable. The better the spectacle, the more revenue (directly and indirectly) all clubs generate.

I agree, but we should spend within our budget and our budget should be determined by football generated revenue, across the entire league, not what one club can afford. Money that is sourced by non-football revenue can be spent on non-football department areas which are important areas of football clubs as well.

It does not need to be within the realm of all clubs, ie I think we spend about $16m and Collingwood $22m, if they cap it to $20m for example it is still more than what the poorer clubs can afford to pay on the football department and gives them incentive to increase their own productivity but if this figure is indexed with football revenue growth it is not going to keep exploding exponentially which it has over the last ten years.

North, Port and WB all have excellent recent form in this area.

I think all the clubs are lead better now than they used to be, in the lead up to the AFL trying to shove is to the GC we had a part time president, a CEO who probably wasn't qualified to run a chook raffle let alone a football club and a dysfunctional board and we had no power to do anything about it as members. Motive aside, the good that came out of the AFL move was that we had to change and in that process overhauled many aspects of the club and have become more professional. If you have good people then things will improve.

However, we can either try to keep up with Collingwood's spending or give up on competing on-field and invest in the future and hope we don't die by the time we produce enough off-field revenue.

I don't ever want to see clubs feel like they do not have to try and better themselves, so I am against hand-outs. I am all for creating support to help clubs to help themselves and provide them help if they are unable to, like the AFL has stepped in with Melbourne to help them out.

But, the excessive spending some clubs are putting into the football department is contributed by non-football revenue.

Collingwood for example turned over $69.3m in 2012, their revenue from marketing, merchandise and sponsorship was $19.1m, Membership was $16.2m, AFL distributions and match revenue of $13.2m, these are heavily influenced by AFL preferential scheduling. They also had $19.8m from social club and gaming. They overall made 7.8m profit in 2012.

How are you going to create a level playing field? Clubs aren't going to get Collingwood-like draws decade after decade to allow themselves to maximise their revenue from sponsorship, marketing, gameday, etc. AFL determines who hits that jackpot. If Collingwood are given our schedule over the last decade they would still be a big club but their support would be much lower, their money they could produce significantly lower. it is not just Collingwood, the AFL empowers Collingwood so they can maximise their revenue.

While the economic opportunity table is so lopsided I don't know how you can expect clubs who are given the crumbs to compete. Collingwood is asking $3.5m from Emirates for their sponsorship deal, they couldn't give a crap about Collingwood and could probably count on one hand how many Collingwood supporters have flown Emirates, they are just paying for the advertising space on TV.

We don't really care if Collingwood turns over a billion dollars, but if the AFL are their sugar daddy and giving them premium access then they can't let them dictate what the football department spending ceiling is. It undermines everything else they do to create an even competition.

If Saunders is as good as advertised, he is worth every cent. Do we want these people pissing off to other codes? I thought North made a record profit this year, without pokie assistance?

I don't think Steve is hard up for cash, he had been courted by the bigger clubs before he joined us but liked the opportunity and direction we presented. If it came down to purely an economical battle we would have lost the fight before it started.

We have made reasonable money, particularly this year, that is because we have made a fair bit of money playing 2 games at a clean stadium where we can negotiate a deal. At a 10k stadium we make at least $500k per game and that is on top of sharing the spoils with Cricket Tasmania and AFL Tasmania. Those two games would net us more than 11 would at Docklands, that is how bad the situation is.

I agree totally regarding the draw - it was my main argument and avenue for equalisation.

The problem is the AFL wont equalise the draw, it means they will lose revenue in the short term and would require them actually doing some work rather than just sitting around doing nothing and collecting fat bonus cheques for reaching revenue and attendance quotas.

I mean we could be hoping on rainbows and leprechauns as well but we need to focus on what is realistically achievable.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Limiting spending doesn't help the kids at the poorer clubs, it just negatively affects the kids at richer clubs.

 

[Old Campaigner]

Limiting spending doesn't help the kids at the poorer clubs, it just negatively affects the kids at richer clubs.

It depends on where you set the limit. There will be a point where additional spending does very little.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Well setting a cap isn't going to increase the amount the poorer clubs spend.

Either the money is being spent well, in which case a cap just negatively affects player development, or it's being wasted in which case it's not disadvantaging poorer clubs. Either way, no real positive effect from a cap.

 

[Tas]

Well setting a cap isn't going to increase the amount the poorer clubs spend.

Either the money is being spent well, in which case a cap just negatively affects player development, or it's being wasted in which case it's not disadvantaging poorer clubs. Either way, no real positive effect from a cap.

West Coast junior assistants probably get paid more than our senior coach, I think they can find room to tighten the belt without hurting their kids development. We are not talking about capping spending to a ridiculously low level. It just has to be something the competition can afford.

It means the rich clubs wont have the capacity to bloat senior players with promises of golden handshakes with jobs in the football department doing stuff all post retirement, and we know this goes on.

It is why some clubs who employ a lot of recently retired players make a lot of noise about having to spend less.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

West Coast junior assistants probably get paid more than our senior coach, I think they can find room to tighten the belt without hurting their kids development. We are not talking about capping spending to a ridiculously low level. It just has to be something the competition can afford.

It means the rich clubs wont have the capacity to bloat senior players with promises of golden handshakes with jobs in the football department doing stuff all post retirement, and we know this goes on.

It is why some clubs who employ a lot of recently retired players make a lot of noise about having to spend less.

How does that help North's kids though? All it does is hurt West Coast's kids.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

...by limiting the post-career appeal of big clubs, small clubs will be more competitive in securing experienced trade-ins and free agents, thereby ensuring more game-time for the kids already on the list? Hmm.

Really, the only way I can see a cap benefiting young players league-wide is if it's soft, with a luxury tax, and fed back into development at the beneficiaries.

 

[Tas]

How does that help North's kids though? All it does is hurt West Coast's kids.

It hurts us because we have to attempt to pay more to keep the staff we have. Imagine your salary cap when GC and GWS came in and those clubs were offering wads of money to everyone. We didn't lose any players but it wasn't a painless period, we would have had to go some way to bridge the gap between what they were going to pay and the ridiculous money the new clubs were throwing them.

Now imagine there are a number of clubs like this and they have 4, 5 or 6 million more than you have to spend. That creates inflationary pressure on the smaller clubs, they either can't afford the best people or have to pay them more than you can realistically afford to keep then which means you can't employ as many people as the richer clubs or have to make considerable sacrifices to hold on to good staff.

I do not want to deny people from earning what they are worth, however, I do not think the spending cap needs to be permanent. It needs to be in place to allow smaller clubs to compete and to create a level playing field on-field and give them the opportunity to generate resources so all the clubs have the capacity to invest in non-football sources of revenue.

Any other measure within realistic chance of becoming reality is going to be either irresponsibly expensive, ineffective and a waste of money or extremely harmful to the current way of life of some clubs at present. Ie, altering the draw and denying prime time access will probably negatively impact or void agreements some of the bigger clubs have at present.

The reality is that the clubs pushing against it have no feasible alternative and know this is the best workable short-term solution. It just isn't good enough to make wishy washy emotional statements that are absent of proven fact or offer an alternative viable solution.

 

[Jade]

Quality post by Tas, bloke lifts the average quality of North posting on his own. Swimming against the tide though......

 

[Whispering_Jack]

Quality post by Tas, bloke lifts the average quality of North posting on his own. Swimming against the tide though......

It is coming off a low base to be fair

 

[Ben the Gooner]

So we essentially come back to doing what we can to reduce the effectiveness of the richer clubs rather than fixing the root cause.

Fix the stadium deals, and let clubs do what they like. If they can't thrive on a level playing field, stadium-wise, then it's their problem. It seems to me that fixing the stadium deals would just remove the ready-made excuse poorer clubs have for wanting to weaken richer clubs rather than sorting out their own backyard.

 

[yaco55]

Two separate issues - Stadium deals and Footy Department spending. Better stadium deals will undoubtedly provide more equality, although I think we will have to wait until 2025 for this to happen. Footy clubs have a history of pissing money up the wall, and offer a footy department an extra $5m, and it will be grabbed quickly, even though there is no necessity for the money. Let clubs be creative and work within parameters. After all EFC spent lots on their footy dept in 2012, and we know where that landed us.

 

[Old Campaigner]

So we essentially come back to doing what we can to reduce the effectiveness of the richer clubs rather than fixing the root cause.

Fix the stadium deals, and let clubs do what they like. If they can't thrive on a level playing field, stadium-wise, then it's their problem. It seems to me that fixing the stadium deals would just remove the ready-made excuse poorer clubs have for wanting to weaken richer clubs rather than sorting out their own backyard.

Trouble is that even fixing the deals will not make it a level playing field. The rich clubs have enough assets and income to fully exploit new opportunities to make money but making a bit more money from games will not automatically turn a poor club into a rich club. Handing them several million to invest in income earning assets would go a long way to fixing them though.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

It's not "a bit" more money. North lose money from a 30,000 crowd at Etihad. We profit from a 10,000 crowd. Fair stadium deals and a special distribution find for fixture inequalities is all the equalisation we need. Anything more is about restricting top clubs and therefore their players rather than improving bottom clubs. It's the AFLPA cutting off its nose to spite its face.

 

[Stopher]

It's not "a bit" more money. North lose money from a 30,000 crowd at Etihad. We profit from a 10,000 crowd. Fair stadium deals and a special distribution find for fixture inequalities is all the equalisation we need. Anything more is about restricting top clubs and therefore their players rather than improving bottom clubs. It's the AFLPA cutting off its nose to spite its face.

Seriously? That is shocking, if true. It's hearing stuff like that that makes you think a Princes Park-type alternative wouldn't be such a bad idea for some smaller clubs.

 

[Mercurial89]

It's not "a bit" more money. North lose money from a 30,000 crowd at Etihad. We profit from a 10,000 crowd. Fair stadium deals and a special distribution find for fixture inequalities is all the equalisation we need. Anything more is about restricting top clubs and therefore their players rather than improving bottom clubs. It's the AFLPA cutting off its nose to spite its face.

It's the problem with a lot of the arguements people have for communism and equality in our society. It's all about bringing the top down and raising the bottom slightly but what you get is a more equal but in the end a lesser product. People need to realize it should not be about limiting or penalizing the top but remove the obstacles that exist that stop the poorer clubs from Reaching a higher level.

 

[Doss]

Do North really lose money even if they draw a crowd of 30,000 at Etihad, Tas? I suppose similar for St Kilda and Footscray, too?

That's appalling if true.

Whatever your views on how far equalisation should go, I think it's completely unacceptable that clubs are forced into financial arrangements where a crowd of 30,000 at their home ground (with a capacity of 55k) still equates to a loss and, at the very least, that needs to be remedied. Fast.