Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Thread X

[Kong]

If only the AFL could control independent bodies like Etihad Stadium the way they do the clubs.

Kind of ironic, actually.

 

[Whispering_Jack]

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.

It is close I believe, at 30,000 they may not lose money but they won't be making much. I know if they play someone like Freo there and only 20,000 turn up they certainly lose money.

 

[BrunoV]

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.

Exactly, compensate for or remove any institutionalized inequality and move on.

 

[Tas]

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.

It is not just attendance, it depends on what is spent at the game. Swan said Carlton had to write a cheque to Docklands on a crowd of just over 40,000. We must have alcoholics or something as we usually break even around 30k.

The problem is that there is not a massive variance between the break-even point and the realistic capacity. AFL members have access to 3,000 seats then there is Axcess One and Medallion club, the teams who play don't see anything from those patrons. You don't make enough from good drawing games to offset bad drawing games.

The real problem is the AFL has given the vast majority of the lucrative revenue streams to the stadium owners, so all that money does not factor in the match day receipts, on top of that clubs have to pay both rent and the mortgage on the stadium. They turned over something like $74m in 2012 (haven't seen 2013 figures), of that $25m was profit. AFL have just given them license to rip off the clubs here. Essendon dodged the bullet because they can realistically move their games to the MCG due to the supporter base so Docklands have given you guys a far better deal.

Because they get guaranteed games irrespective how woeful the deal they give to clubs is they have no real incentive to negotiate better deals with the remaining clubs.

If the clubs who paid the mortgage ended up with the equity then you wouldn't need to subsidise them, they could sell off their equity share in the stadium or finance it another way, the problem is the equity goes to the AFL and effectively 1/18th share to everyone, irrespective if they have contributed to paying it off or not. This is made worse by the fact 3 of the least wealthiest clubs are forced to pay it off. We were denied by the AFL moving our games back to the MCG, Dogs were denied moving their games to Geelong's ground. There are better arrangements out there but the AFL wont let us go.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

Essendon also signed up first on the condition that their deal would always be better than that with any other tenant.

 

[Haso]

Yeah, the watermarks look shit.

Agreed. Sofa king glad the paddlepop is departing though. We will stomach the watermarks if it means the proper guernsey comes back.

nah i reckon the paddlepop lion suited the pack of twats

Well that's not very nice. You'll hurt their feelings if you're not careful.

 

[Old Campaigner]

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.

Compared to other potential income streams it would be just a little bit more money. How much would a club with a good Etihad deal like us make from games compared to sponsorships, memberships, assets such as pokies etc? Equalisation wont happen if half the clubs are miles behind the rich ones when the rules are made fair. While they are crawling their way to where the rich clubs are today, the rich clubs will have moved miles more ahead. The AFL (assuming they actually believe in equalisation and are determined to make it happen, and aren't just paying lip service) would need to greatly accelerate the growth of the poorer clubs or slow the growth of the rich clubs if the poor clubs are ever going to catch up.

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.

But the people/clubs at the top are an obstacle for the people/clubs at the bottom of the pile improving their situation. The rich people/clubs are better positioned to take advantage of opportunities that would benefit the poorer people/clubs. If an investment opportunity came up but it needed $1mil to be invested up front a club like the Bulldogs would be unable to exploit it, but a club like Essendon could do it with the spare change behind the couch. It seems a simplistic example but think about housing investment; some people are making billions of easy, almost risk free money investing in houses but that is totally out of the reach of the majority of the population.
There will always be some inequality between the rich people/clubs and the poor ones but it needs to have more to do with the abilities of the agents involved rather than the financial situation they inherit from the forebears. It's totally unfair to the players and fans that a poor club like the Bulldogs might have quite a brilliant CEO but be dirt poor and likely to remain that way, while a club like us could have an utter muppet in charge and still be able to grow.
(Disclaimer: not actually a communist)

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Compared to other potential income streams it would be just a little bit more money. How much would a club with a good Etihad deal like us make from games compared to sponsorships, memberships, assets such as pokies etc? Equalisation wont happen if half the clubs are miles behind the rich ones when the rules are made fair. While they are crawling their way to where the rich clubs are today, the rich clubs will have moved miles more ahead. The AFL (assuming they actually believe in equalisation and are determined to make it happen, and aren't just paying lip service) would need to greatly accelerate the growth of the poorer clubs or slow the growth of the rich clubs if the poor clubs are ever going to catch up.


But the people/clubs at the top are an obstacle for the people/clubs at the bottom of the pile improving their situation. The rich people/clubs are better positioned to take advantage of opportunities that would benefit the poorer people/clubs. If an investment opportunity came up but it needed $1mil to be invested up front a club like the Bulldogs would be unable to exploit it, but a club like Essendon could do it with the spare change behind the couch. It seems a simplistic example but think about housing investment; some people are making billions of easy, almost risk free money investing in houses but that is totally out of the reach of the majority of the population.
There will always be some inequality between the rich people/clubs and the poor ones but it needs to have more to do with the abilities of the agents involved rather than the financial situation they inherit from the forebears. It's totally unfair to the players and fans that a poor club like the Bulldogs might have quite a brilliant CEO but be dirt poor and likely to remain that way, while a club like us could have an utter muppet in charge and still be able to grow.
(Disclaimer: not actually a communist)

Are the rules not exactly the same for memberships? For sponsorships? Pokies? There's your level playing field. If you're not good enough to capitalise, that's your problem.

 

[Old Campaigner]

Are the rules not exactly the same for memberships? For sponsorships? Pokies? There's your level playing field. If you're not good enough to capitalise, that's your problem.

It's not about being good enough to capitalise, it's about having the resources to capitalise. If you don't have the resources to capitalise it doesn't matter if you have the most brilliant businessman alive at the helm, you ain't going anywhere.

Same goes for individuals.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Hawthorn completely dismantles that argument.

 

[baz_machine]

Hawthorn completely dismantles that argument.

It only took them 2 decades of sustained sucess to get them to that stage

 

[Burzum]

Are the rules not exactly the same for memberships? For sponsorships? Pokies? There's your level playing field. If you're not good enough to capitalise, that's your problem.

No, we must bring the successful clubs down and stifle advancement.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

2004:

Hawthorn 7.11 (53) Port Adelaide 15.15 (105) MCG 11,682 Sunday, 18 July

11,682 to a home game.

 

[Old Campaigner]

Hawthorn completely dismantles that argument.

There were pretty extraordinary circumstances surrounding the Hawks' rise. Not very many clubs would have doubled their membership tally in one season.

Maybe the solution is to propose mergers for all the poor clubs to jolt fans into giving up their hard earned to save their beloved clubs

Either way it comes down to a massive injection of funds from one source or another.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

OK, let's use the basket case example:

http://www.aflmembershipnumbers.com/st-kilda-membership-numbers.html

17,696 in 2002 - lowest ebb this century
31,906 in 2009 - 80% increase in 7 years on the back of moderate success
39,021 in 2010 - further 22% in a year on the back of a narrow GF loss bringing it to a total of a 121% increase in 8 seasons.

On-field success is cyclical (only Richmond and the expansion clubs haven't made a PF since 2000, and only Carlton and Melbourne haven't made 2 or more in that time if I'm not mistaken (the second half of that stat is off the top of my head)) and even total rabbles can capitalise to that massive extent.

 

[Kong]

2004:

Hawthorn 7.11 (53) Port Adelaide 15.15 (105) MCG 11,682 Sunday, 18 July

11,682 to a home game.

Was at that game.

True story.

 

[baz_machine]

If they AFL really wanted equalisation, then they need to negotiate the staduim deals for Eithad and MCG as a block of Vic teams (ie do a deal with Eithad management on behalf of Essendon / North / Bulldogs / St Kilda), instead of each team coming to terms with the stadium management.

The AFL somewhat put itself in a corner $$$ wise when it built Eithad because they simply couldn't have ~$200 million debt on their books (the interest would have killed them, since they'd be rated pretty low in business terms).

Come 2025, when they take ownership of the staduim then this goes away. MCG will be forced to do a better deal as the AFL will use Eithad as a bargaining tool (it already does). Question is, can St Kilda, North, Bulldogs survive for another 10 years?

 

[Old Campaigner]

OK, let's use the basket case example:

http://www.aflmembershipnumbers.com/st-kilda-membership-numbers.html

17,696 in 2002 - lowest ebb this century
31,906 in 2009 - 80% increase in 7 years on the back of moderate success
39,021 in 2010 - further 22% in a year on the back of a narrow GF loss bringing it to a total of a 121% increase in 8 seasons.

On-field success is cyclical (only Richmond and the expansion clubs haven't made a PF since 2000, and only Carlton and Melbourne haven't made 2 or more in that time if I'm not mistaken (the second half of that stat is off the top of my head)) and even total rabbles can capitalise to that massive extent.

And where are they now? In debt with a playing list in tatters. I bet they didn't blow all the cash they made during the late 2000s on the footy department, and they actually made some wise investments; yet what do they have to show from a more successful decade than us? Nothing. Sustainable finances take more than just a few grand finals appearances to achieve and I suspect most of the poor clubs will never get there without outside assistance.

 

[Old Campaigner]

Come 2025, when they take ownership of the staduim then this goes away. MCG will be forced to do a better deal as the AFL will use Eithad as a bargaining tool (it already does). Question is, can St Kilda, North, Bulldogs survive for another 10 years?

Well they can because I suspect the AFL won't allow them to fold. But better stadium deals won't automatically make the league equal (or close to equal, that identical clubs BS that the Collingwood flog was on about is a fantasy dreamt up as an excuse to maintain the status quo).

 

[Ben the Gooner]

And where are they now? In debt with a playing list in tatters. I bet they didn't blow all the cash they made during the late 2000s on the footy department, and they actually made some wise investments; yet what do they have to show from a more successful decade than us? Nothing. Sustainable finances take more than just a few grand finals appearances to achieve and I suspect most of the poor clubs will never get there without outside assistance.

Your argument was that membership needs to be equalised. I proved that even a complete rabble like St Kilda can have an incredibly good membership base (more than Big 4 club Richmond that year incidentally. Only 1-2k behind Carlton). If they can't sustain it, if they waste their money moving their training base to Antarctica or wherever it is now, do we need to equalise that as well? Why don't we draft CEOs and presidents every year? Or even better, why don't we go truly equal, and put 18 pieces of paper into a hat and pick the premier that way?

 

[Old Campaigner]

Your argument was that membership needs to be equalised. I proved that even a complete rabble like St Kilda can have an incredibly good membership base (more than Big 4 club Richmond that year incidentally. Only 1-2k behind Carlton). If they can't sustain it, if they waste their money moving their training base to Antarctica or wherever it is now, do we need to equalise that as well? Why don't we draft CEOs and presidents every year? Or even better, why don't we go truly equal, and put 18 pieces of paper into a hat and pick the premier that way?

The argument was never that membership needs to be equalised. More members help but if you have debt and a shitty stadium deal, when the glory days are done and the members close their wallets you are left with debt and a shitty stadium deal. Fixing the stadium deal and doing nothing else allows the club to start paying off the debt but while that is happening clubs like ours keep growing and the gap keeps widening (just a bit slower than before).

Becoming truly equal is neither possible nor desirable, there will always be the human factor which will keep things interesting and unpredictable.

 

[baz_machine]

Well they can because I suspect the AFL won't allow them to fold. But better stadium deals won't automatically make the league equal (or close to equal, that identical clubs BS that the Collingwood flog was on about is a fantasy dreamt up as an excuse to maintain the status quo).

What I'm trying to get at is by 2025 most teams will be on the same stadium deal in melbourne (ie get 25 k patrons get x $$$) no matter who the team is.

There will always be big clubs and small clubs because big clubs will always pull more punters.

Unless of course they share all gate revenues (which I hope never happens).

 

[Mercurial89]

The argument was never that membership needs to be equalised. More members help but if you have debt and a shitty stadium deal, when the glory days are done and the members close their wallets you are left with debt and a shitty stadium deal. Fixing the stadium deal and doing nothing else allows the club to start paying off the debt but while that is happening clubs like ours keep growing and the gap keeps widening (just a bit slower than before).

Becoming truly equal is neither possible nor desirable, there will always be the human factor which will keep things interesting and unpredictable.

But you have just Basicaly solved the problem with this post. If the stadium deals that hurt clubs are gotten rid of clubs can focus on eradicating debt and building. That's where innovation will come in, just because essendon is rich doesn't mean we are innovative (I'd argue we aren't at all). If a poor club is on an equal playing field in regards to not being held back by their stadium deal they can grow. Look at the work north and Melbourne and even tigers did to the large amounts of debt they had. In1 season they wiped millions off of it. The problem in that case is north can wipe out as much debt as they want but they get r*ped by their stadium deal which just holds them back when that money could be used elsewhere. However they have done very well with their spending over the past year their future is looking good.

 

[yaco55]

Are the rules not exactly the same for memberships? For sponsorships? Pokies? There's your level playing field. If you're not good enough to capitalise, that's your problem.

It helps when your club has Bruce Mathieson as a benefactor - After all he owns close to half the pokies in Melbourne.

 

[yaco55]

Well they can because I suspect the AFL won't allow them to fold. But better stadium deals won't automatically make the league equal (or close to equal, that identical clubs BS that the Collingwood flog was on about is a fantasy dreamt up as an excuse to maintain the status quo).

Better stadium deals will go a long way to evening up the competition.