North debt free for the first time since 1987

[Sphynx]

I may be stating the bleeding obvious here, but the thing about discretionary distributions is that they're discretionary. There was no legal basis for them and were handed out based on the AFLs whims at the time.

I'm not sure what basis you think any legal action would have been successful. "It's not fair" generally doesn't work in the courts, and in any case the AFL could have pointed to a genuine assistance package that was rejected.

To be honest, at the time I was opposed to the relocation attempt, but in hindsight given how atrociously run the Suns have been I'd have to say I was wrong.



So what? From memory wasn't there a big TV deal that got signed around that time which resulted in a big increase to clubs?

You seem to have a warped idea of what the AFL actually is.

An AFL club is essentially a shareholder of a corporation. The 18 clubs nominate and elect AFL commissioners who control the development funding for the entire sport.

Clubs have the power to veto ANY decision by the commission by a 2/3 majority.

The AFL don’t own and have a overarching control over AFL clubs like you are implying. The only ones they do are GWS and GC because the AFL commission own a % of them.

The AFL commission can’t just stop paying dividends to a single shareholder because they feel like it...

 

[Roylion]

I may be stating the bleeding obvious here, but the thing about discretionary distributions is that they're discretionary. There was no legal basis for them and were handed out based on the AFLs whims at the time.

As had been pointed out the AFL clubs (including North) are shareholders in the AFL. To deny a distribution to one shareholder while allowing distributions to other shareholders in order to force the first shareholder to take a particular action opens the AFL up to a legal challenge. They tried it with Fitzroy in 1993 and backed down when threatened with legal action by the club. Clubs still have the power to override an AFL commission decision and many clubs would be nervous about the AFL arbitrarily witholding funding to one club as it grants funding to other clubs in the same financial predicament as it would set a precedent that could come back to bite them.

I'm not sure what basis you think any legal action would have been successful. "It's not fair" generally doesn't work in the courts, and in any case the AFL could have pointed to a genuine assistance package that was rejected.

And North could have equally argued that it was not an assistance package at all.

What justification would they have had removing only North's extra funding and not other clubs' funding? Caroline Wilson wrote in November 2007 that the Kangaroos would have no guarantee that the special assistance of $1.4 million from the AFL would continue, but that was more speculation than anything else. Had that been done that would have been the subject of legal action given that the AFL itself limits certain revenue raising practices and makes up for the inequities by the special assistance fund.

To suddenly withdraw the guarantee for one of those clubs (and a club they had publicly encouraged to go to the Gold Coast), would have been an incredibly bad look and also opened the AFL up to a costly, time-consuming legal challenge - something the AFL did not want.

Wilson did write about on the 27th November 2007 that if North didn't accept the relocation offer the AFL would consider redrawing the 2008 fixture and pulling the Kangaroos out of Gold Coast games should they reject the league's $100 million relocation offer. She also speculated that the Kangaroos would lose their Gold Coast match revenue - $1.6 million in 2008.

The AFL also tried to purchase enough shares in the North Melbourne football club from existing shareholders to assume control such as Peter de Rauch. He and others refused to sell their shares.

Even if the distributions were withdrawn, this was still no guarantee that North would have relocated to the Gold Coast. The AFL could not force North to take that particular action. And even then North might have considered a merger with a Melbourne based club before it relocated to the Gold Coast. As Fitzroy chose to do.

To be honest, at the time I was opposed to the relocation attempt, but in hindsight given how atrociously run the Suns have been I'd have to say I was wrong.

Wrong for North Melbourne too.

The AFL told North Melbourne that their request for 12 months' grace so North could further consider the Gold Coast offer was denied, so the club voted no to the move.

Mike Fitzpatrick was most unhappy at North's decision, but he also knew there was nothing the AFL could do about it. The planning for GC17 got underway.

So what? From memory wasn't there a big TV deal that got signed around that time which resulted in a big increase to clubs?

I believe so. That would have also been impossible to deny to North Melbourne alone.

 

[Rob]

You seem to have a warped idea of what the AFL actually is.

An AFL club is essentially a shareholder of a corporation. The 18 clubs nominate and elect AFL commissioners who control the development funding for the entire sport.

Clubs have the power to veto ANY decision by the commission by a 2/3 majority.

The AFL don’t own and have a overarching control over AFL clubs like you are implying. The only ones they do are GWS and GC because the AFL commission own a % of them.

The AFL commission can’t just stop paying dividends to a single shareholder because they feel like it...

I agree, but they most certainly could have given most clubs the base distribution - which they did at the time. Adding one more to that would not have been unfair.
Discretionary distributions are discretionary.

 

[Engimal v3]

North have an off field win for the first time in 30 years and the typical wet blankets of BigFooty of course have their first response as "oh yeah, show us the proof!"

I'd love to see a Venn Diagram of those people and the BigFooty posters who are currently deleting their posts from 2010 saying North wouldn't exist in 5 years. My guess it that it'd be a circle

 

[The_Wookie]

I agree, but they most certainly could have given most clubs the base distribution - which they did at the time. Adding one more to that would not have been unfair.
Discretionary distributions are discretionary.

Funding is generally agreed to over the life of the broadcast deal. Base distributions to all clubs are part of their franchise agreements.

Discretionary funding is a it dicey, i think for the reasons Roylion outlined above - but while some clubs would get antsy about it, some might well applaud. Take away Norths consent and the league is in battles over funding, stadium agreements, home ground arrangements, fixturing biases and other cans of worms the league probably doesnt want examined.

 

[Kwality]

As the world's population expands, why not. The standard with sixteen runners in the Olympic final, would be just as good, if not better, as it was fifty years ago. Even in the 21st century the qualifying times for the 100 metres has fallen from 10.26s in 2000 to 10.05s in 2021.

The 100 metres is an example of elite sport.

5-6 extra squads in the AFL will ALL come from the 2nd tier. Give it a couple of years & these 2nd tier footballers will be spread across the team you follow, & it wont lower the level of talent.
As much as I love Subi, 2nd tier footy will never attract TV dollars, media coverage, crowds or membership.

 

[Kwality]

Funding is generally agreed to over the life of the broadcast deal. Base distributions to all clubs are part of their franchise agreements.

Discretionary funding is a it dicey, i think for the reasons Roylion outlined above - but while some clubs would get antsy about it, some might well applaud. Take away Norths consent and the league is in battles over funding, stadium agreements, home ground arrangements, fixturing biases and other cans of worms the league probably doesnt want examined.

It would have been a divisive action & we would have 2 less teams today. How well the relocated teams dealt with retaining their traditional followers will always an unknown, as the experience is limited to Souths/Sydney & Fitzroy being swallowed in establishing the Lions.
The would always be a loud opposition.

I dont accept the stadium/home ground/FIXturing would have been any insurmountable problem. We would still be stuck with the H&A arrangement that worked a treat for suburban footy but is a deadweight around the national comp.

 

[Rob]

Funding is generally agreed to over the life of the broadcast deal. Base distributions to all clubs are part of their franchise agreements.

Discretionary funding is a it dicey, i think for the reasons Roylion outlined above - but while some clubs would get antsy about it, some might well applaud. Take away Norths consent and the league is in battles over funding, stadium agreements, home ground arrangements, fixturing biases and other cans of worms the league probably doesnt want examined.

At the time it was basically who needed cash. The current system of payments planned years in advance is relatively recent.

But don't get away from the point - the AFL could have effectively forced North to move had they put a caveat on at the time that they were to receive the same distributions from the league going forward that most clubs were on. That they didn't do that (the AFL actually did the opposite and increased discretionary payments) made the decision for the club an easy one. Relocations, mergers etc are only ever going to be a last resort.

 

[The_Wookie]

At the time it was basically who needed cash. The current system of payments planned years in advance is relatively recent.

Competitive Balance plans have been around since at least 2004 - they were part of the leagues strategic planning. the ASD didnt start until 2001.

But don't get away from the point - the AFL could have effectively forced North to move had they put a caveat on at the time that they were to receive the same distributions from the league going forward that most clubs were on. That they didn't do that (the AFL actually did the opposite and increased discretionary payments) made the decision for the club an easy one. Relocations, mergers etc are only ever going to be a last resort.

Not without throwing the same threats at the Western Bulldogs, Saints and Melbourne. Which I think was one of the points Roylion was making. You cant just make a set of rules for one club, it opens a massive can of worms.

The only reason the AFL was able to dispose of the Lions license was due to it being in administration and signed off by the Administrator.

 

[Roylion]

The 100 metres is an example of elite sport.

16 runners in the 100 metres final would still be an elite event. The top 16 sprinters today would still be faster than the top eight sprinters of forty years ago

5-6 extra squads in the AFL will ALL come from the 2nd tier.

No they won't. Some of the squads for new AFL clubs will consist of some of the best kids in the country via the draft, some from existing AFL player lists, some from recently delisted players from AFL clubs(amny of whom could be playing AFL except for a lack of senior list spots and AFL requirements for a minimum of three draft picks) and probably a couple of the elite players of the VFL, SANFL and WAFL, who wouldn't look out of place on an AFL list.

Give it a couple of years & these 2nd tier footballers will be spread across the team you follow, & it wont lower the level of talent.

Lower the level of talent in comparison to what?

As much as I love Subi, 2nd tier footy will never attract TV dollars, media coverage, crowds or membership.

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Kwality]

No they won't. Some of the squads for new AFL clubs will consist of some of the best kids in the country via the draft, some from existing AFL player lists, some from recently delisted players from AFL clubs(amny of whom could be playing AFL except for a lack of senior list spots and AFL requirements for a minimum of three draft picks) and probably a couple of the elite players of the VFL, SANFL and WAFL, who wouldn't look out of place on an AFL list.

Take it at a point in time, one point.

The draft is happening & the players are ranked. Only the best get on a list.

Another 6 clubs would add 250 players to the player pool & they are from the 2nd tier presently. Why arent those 250 players on a list now, because they are not good enough.
Stop looking for excuses.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Take it at a point in time, one point.

The draft is happening & the players are ranked. Only the best get on a list.

Another 6 clubs would add 250 players to the player pool & they are from the 2nd tier presently. Why arent those 250 players on a list now, because they are not good enough.
Stop looking for excuses.

I don't think Roylion is advocating for 6 new teams coming through all at the same time but more so over time. During Covid, list size cuts were mandated. I believe list sizes were reduced by at least 3 spots per club. That would be enough players with AFL experience to filter into a new club which would also have access to draft picks. My club, albeit pretty hopeless recently, delisted 11 players in one go as did a few others. I think it would be possible to bring in a couple more teams across the nation fairly effortlessly.

The AFL continually talks about increasing participation levels on the Gold Coast. Some of that is already feeding through to the draft and the number of draft calibre players should continue to rise through expansion. One would think that participation in Tassie would increase significantly when a new team is started there and they should be able to provide a lot more players to the player pool.

 

[Kwality]

16 runners in the 100 metres final would still be an elite event. The top 16 sprinters today would still be faster than the top eight sprinters of forty years ago



No they won't. Some of the squads for new AFL clubs will consist of some of the best kids in the country via the draft, some from existing AFL player lists, some from recently delisted players from AFL clubs(amny of whom could be playing AFL except for a lack of senior list spots and AFL requirements for a minimum of three draft picks) and probably a couple of the elite players of the VFL, SANFL and WAFL, who wouldn't look out of place on an AFL list.



Lower the level of talent in comparison to what?



What does that have to do with anything?

1. so the lower ranked players are as good as the top ranked players, okay if thats how it is.

2. the level of talent as used in drafting & has been for years

3. see the context of the comment I replied to. Is that okay?

To assist your understanding, take the lists at the end of the home & away season, when the best players are on AFL lists & 2nd tier lists are intact, the kids are looking to be drafted. The new lists are reconstructed..

 

[Kwality]

I don't think Roylion is advocating for 6 new teams coming through all at the same time but more so over time. During Covid, list size cuts were mandated. I believe list sizes were reduced by at least 3 spots per club. That would be enough players with AFL experience to filter into a new club which would also have access to draft picks. My club, albeit pretty hopeless recently, delisted 11 players in one go as did a few others. I think it would be possible to bring in a couple more teams across the nation fairly effortlessly.

The AFL continually talks about increasing participation levels on the Gold Coast. Some of that is already feeding through to the draft and the number of draft calibre players should continue to rise through expansion. One would think that participation in Tassie would increase significantly when a new team is started there and they should be able to provide a lot more players to the player pool.

The extra clubs no matter how many, lower the bar to entry for less talented players: Its a basic principle that is being discussed, not the number of extra reams.
It would be effortless to add them in real terms, & the results are there for all to see. The first teams added in WA & SA had success early based on the talent available from their heartland clubs. Will Tassie have access to that local talent or would it be drawn from the national pool ? So not the 18 teams, it would be (say) 24, & the talent would be divided accordingly.
Where RoyLion & I disagree is whether the depth of that talent can go around.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

The extra clubs no matter how many, lower the bar to entry for less talented players: Its a basic principle that is being discussed, not the number of extra reams.
It would be effortless to add them in real terms, & the results are there for all to see. The first teams added in WA & SA had success early based on the talent available from their heartland clubs. Will Tassie have access to that local talent or would it be drawn from the national pool ? So not the 18 teams, it would be (say) 24, & the talent would be divided accordingly.
Where RoyLion & I disagree is whether the depth of that talent can go around.

I'd Imagine that Tassie would get an academy. I believe that depth of talent will only increase over time due to increased participation which can offset the talent dilution. Listening to Hugh Greenwood speak recently, there is probably a bigger go home factor for tasmanians than people think too.

 

[Roylion]

Take it at a point in time, one point.

The draft is happening & the players are ranked. Only the best get on a list.

Another 6 clubs would add 250 players to the player pool & they are from the 2nd tier presently. Why arent those 250 players on a list now, because they are not good enough.

Because there was no room on what are heavily restricted lists and also salary cap constraints.

I'm not advocating for the addition of six clubs at the one time.

If you added another 19th club for the 2022 season, the 40 man list would come from:

- Draftees (another 50-60 players will be added to AFL lists tonight and tomorrow)

- Delistings from existing lists. At the very least, 54 players were delisted from 2021 lists because of mainly salary cap constraints or a lack of list spots. Charlie Constable, Michael Gibbons, Daniel Talia, Tom Lynch, Matthew Ling, Reece Conca, Oliver Hanrahan, Partick Naish, Hamish Hartlett, Levi Casboult, Brayden Sier, Jack Lonie, Brett Bewley, David Zaharakis, Aaron Vanderberg, Mark Hutchings, Trent Dumont and James Cousins could all still play competitive AFL football in 2022 yet find themselves off lists for various reasons. And delisted players can bounce back and have great careers including Peter Bell, Leigh Brown, Brett Kirk and Craig Bolton

- out of contract players from other clubs moving to the new club.

The following articles explain it well.

http://www.hpnfooty.com/?p=31834

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/ev...g/news-story/00c6b15719df27a77d4482752d766898

 

[Kwality]

Because there was no room on what are heavily restricted lists and also salary cap constraints.

I'm not advocating for the addition of six clubs at the one time.

If you added another 19th club for the 2022 season, the 40 man list would come from:

- Draftees (another 50-60 players will be added to AFL lists tonight and tomorrow)

- Delistings from existing lists. At the very least, 54 players were delisted from 2021 lists because of mainly salary cap constraints or a lack of list spots. Charlie Constable, Michael Gibbons, Daniel Talia, Tom Lynch, Matthew Ling, Reece Conca, Oliver Hanrahan, Partick Naish, Hamish Hartlett, Levi Casboult, Brayden Sier, Jack Lonie, Brett Bewley, David Zaharakis, Aaron Vanderberg, Mark Hutchings, Trent Dumont and James Cousins could all still play competitive AFL football in 2022 yet find themselves off lists for various reasons. And delisted players can bounce back and have great careers including Peter Bell, Leigh Brown, Brett Kirk and Craig Bolton

- out of contract players from other clubs moving to the new club.

The following articles explain it well.

http://www.hpnfooty.com/?p=31834

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/ev...g/news-story/00c6b15719df27a77d4482752d766898

The absolute truth of measuring it at any point in time is displayed. Extending the time only allows time to dissipate the effect. The net effect is the same, just as the most recent development teams in the toughest of markets.

Given this subject is academic, if North had the worst list last season, how would your team assembled above go. Would it be 19th, & with no rusted on support, an extra team would be a disaster.

 

[Roylion]

The absolute truth of measuring it at any point in time is displayed. Extending the time only allows time to dissipate the effect. The net effect is the same, just as the most recent development teams in the toughest of markets.

Given this subject is academic, if North had the worst list last season, how would your team assembled above go.

Depends what other players from other clubs joined the new club. Half of the list for 2022 would either currently be on an AFL list (draftees) or would have been on an AFL list in 2021.

Would it be 19th,

Perhaps in its first couple of years. As the talent evened out over the clubs it would climb the ladder. Much like the Giants did.

http://www.hpnfooty.com/?p=31834

& with no rusted on support, an extra team would be a disaster.

So no Tasmania?

 

[Kwality]

Depends what other players from other clubs joined the new club. Half of the list for 2022 would either currently be on an AFL list (draftees) or would have been on an AFL list in 2021.



Perhaps in its first couple of years. As the talent evened out over the clubs it would climb the ladder. Much like the Giants did.

http://www.hpnfooty.com/?p=31834



So no Tasmania?

Tassie : I'm not sure how deep the VFL grasp is. Most WA & SA fans of the 80s had an interest in the VFL based on (my experience) the locals playing in the comp, but that was more player than club driven. In WA, North had a strong following (Cabes followed by Ross Glendinning & the Krakouers), but the early success of the Eagles saw WA footy kick on.
I think Tassie will take 10 years unless it is given an opportunity to assemble a decent squad. Old loyalties will be tested.

 

[The Warlord]

Well done North. Well run club, apart from a brain fart a few years ago.

Club management is far more important than anything else. Note to Carlton and GC. Get the off field right and good things follow

Yes and no.

Brad's "Godfather offers" strategy didn't work.

But there's no denying we were right in identifying the players to target - Dusty and Josh Kelly.

 

[The Warlord]

Why bother presenting people like this with the information?

They are trolling and with the chip on their shoulder they never wanted the actual information.

They would rather attack smaller Victorian clubs in their deluded belief that those clubs have no right to exist.

I could have named which couple of West Coast supporters would sook and moan and drive this thread off track before it was posted.

I have them on ignore but they still ruin every single thread with the same old crap.

You can sort of understand it though.

Culturally West Coast are North's child, our mouthy little brother.

 

[The Warlord]

It would be interesting to know how they did it. Im not even trolling here.

The only thing that stands out as a point of difference for them is the money they make from flogging games to Hobart. In virtually every other metric they are at the bottom of the table. The last 2 years have been COVID. No fans or spectators at grounds. Most clubs have said they are bleeding. So what could it be?

The Vic Governement has poured in loads of dough into their ARden St Development. Have they leveraged off that? Have they misappropriated funds into their own coffers?
Has Peter Scanlon tipped in millions?
Has Covid actually been good for them, in so much as nobody comes to their games any way so the loss in match day revenue hasn't hurt them?
They don't really have any other revenue streams. Maybe once again COVID has been a blessing in diguise? A low cost base.
Have they simply not spent money except the bare minimum? For years?

It's intriguing.

I've been keeping you updated for years on this stuff.

Perhaps you should pay more attention to my posts.

 

[Kwality]

I could have named which couple of West Coast supporters would sook and moan and drive this thread off track before it was posted.

I have them on ignore but they still ruin every single thread with the same old crap.

You can sort of understand it though.

Culturally West Coast are North's child, our mouthy little brother.

You referring to the downhill skiers ?

 

[The Warlord]

This seems to put St Kilda in the gun.

Hopefully St Kilda can continue paying down their debt and get on a good financial footing.

Then we bring in a standalone Tassie team mid decade, proving that expansion doesn't have to come at the cost of a club.

 

[The Warlord]

The massive push back to complete Vic centricity of the league

The sport was invented in Victoria.