News North's recruiting team resigns en masse

[Lavender Bushranger]

Every odd Melbourne based supporter loss will be more than cancelled by the gains. Once again it is done around the world, we know all this.
A lower supported team is actually the ideal. If you lose 10 per cent of North supporters initially it is only x amount. If you lose 10 percent of Collingwood supporters initially, it is far more dramatic. Nonetheless however, the long term completely outweighs the short term losses.

If this was the case, the AFL would have done it by now already. I agree with the theory - I just don't think the AFL's research (which we know they do conduct) will show this to be the case in practice, at the moment.

The moment they are confident it will be the case, they'll move a club in a heartbeat. They'll turn the screws by tweaking the 'equalisation fund' distribution so that these meek 'profits' are profits no more. They'll give the club awful fixtures so crowd numbers dwindle further. They'll turn their 'accredited media' on them to ensure public perception is that the best option is to move.

The AFL get what they want. When they have time to execute it, they always have and always will. It's their game. They're just letting the clubs take part in it.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

That's very impressive, especially given the lack of gambling revenue.

Genuine question, is it a position that would continue without Tassie revenue/sponsor money when a team starts down there?

What's impressive about cutting spending so much that you're long term recruiter walks out the door on you because you can't match his offer?

What's impressive about getting David Noble as your coach because you can't afford anyone else?


This nonsense about 'no debt' when you're running on a $15m+ deficit aggregate, and are only existing because the AFL give you money is just nonsense - especially when it means you simply don't have the funds to spend on football. Which, to remind you, is why a football club exists.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

North has been running a net operating profit for quite a few years now. No team is gifted AFL distributions, it is TV Rights money earned by all clubs. Essentially it is revenue earned by the clubs.

 

[Pbft]

If this was the case, the AFL would have done it by now already. I agree with the theory - I just don't think the AFL's research (which we know they do conduct) will show this to be the case in practice, at the moment.

The moment they are confident it will be the case, they'll move a club in a heartbeat. They'll turn the screws by tweaking the 'equalisation fund' distribution so that these meek 'profits' are profits no more. They'll give the club awful fixtures so crowd numbers dwindle further. They'll turn their 'accredited media' on them to ensure public perception is that the best option is to move.

The AFL get what they want. When they have time to execute it, they always have and always will. It's their game. They're just letting the clubs take part in it.

Reference the Fitzroy example as case in point.

Question for Goosecat - acknowledging the commercial realities and the gradual acceptance overtime as you have argued - how would you feel about West Coast being relocated to the NT?

 

[Crankyhawk]

The only thing that AFL can do is withdraw the licence to compete in the AFL. They cannot force a legally independent club to relocate or merge. The AFL merely confers a licence to an entity to compete in the AFL competition. For the most part the AFL does not own membership based clubs.



That's the last thing the AFL wants. In which case an administrator could be appointed, taking what happens out of control of the AFL. That administrator is not legally bound by what the AFL wants.




Like many other clubs. Turning off AFL support to North only opens the AFL up to legal challenge.


I suggest you look very carefully at what actually happened to Fitzroy. Beyond AFL marketing preferably.

could they reduce afl support to north to the same level as what other clubs (specifically the lowest distribution clubs) get? would that prevent a legal challenge?

 

[Handsome.B.Wonderful]

could they reduce afl support to north to the same level as what other clubs (specifically the lowest distribution clubs) get? would that prevent a legal challenge?

I'll respond to your post because it's a genuine question and the other bloke is just a clown.

A quick read of the AFL Financial Report will tell you that distribution funding includes the following:

• TV Rights distribution
• League Sponsorship distribution
• Ticketing and Gate distribution
• Merchandise distribution
• AFLW funding
• Travel subsidies
• Prizemoney
• AFL membership-related distributions
• AFL commercial partner payments
• AFL-facilitated stadium payments
• Licensing distributions
• and more...

This quote is prominent on the Financial Results page:

The AFL operates a Club Funding Model, which provides a base distribution and, subject to meeting certain qualifying criteria, a variable distribution.

Variable distributions are designed to provide support to clubs that require additional financial support to fund and maintain their football program (playing and non-playing resources) to a competitive level.

Variable funding distributions are determined based on an estimation of revenue-generating disadvantages that may be caused by, among other things, different supporter base sizes, differing commercial arrangements with stadiums, the financial impact of the fixture and access to income from non-football related businesses.

So it is not just as simple as the AFL withdrawing the variable distribution from North. They would have to prove that North have been able to make up the money they would still be providing to GWS, GC, Brisbane, St Kilda, Western Bulldogs, Melbourne, Sydney, Port etc for the same reasons.

Also it's an often overlooked fact that this variable distribution model has been going on for 20+ years in some form. It is unreasonable to expect that by just providing a cash square up, these clubs can grow at the same rate as the big clubs.

For instance, Collingwood and Richmond dominating the Friday night slot and scheduled into regular blockbusters at the MCG for 20+ years cannot be equalised by paying a certain percentage of the shortfall in cash because cash can only do so much to grow your business. The major factor in AFL club membership and revenue growth is timeslot and TV exposure. While the AFL say that they give priority timeslots to the clubs that perform, you only have to look at the fact that Essendon are scheduled for 3 consecutive Friday night games between Rd 13-15 to know that is a load of horse s**t.

So no, it's not as simple as the AFL deciding on a whim that they can remove that variable funding. While some fans think that other Victorian clubs would be supportive of that, I can guarantee that they would not because it opens up a precedent to take it away for any club. There are years when Carlton, Essendon and Richmond have all dipped into variable funding so for the AFL to decide not to give it to one club as a means of bleeding them dry, it would cause great concern for the expansion clubs and the other 9 VIC clubs.

 

[Roylion]

So no, it's not as simple as the AFL deciding on a whim that they can remove that variable funding. While some fans think that other Victorian clubs would be supportive of that, I can guarantee that they would not because it opens up a precedent to take it away for any club. There are years when Carlton, Essendon and Richmond have all dipped into variable funding so for the AFL to decide not to give it to one club as a means of bleeding them dry, it would cause great concern for the expansion clubs and the other 9 VIC clubs.

It also opens up the AFL to legal challenge, if the AFL were to arbitrarily decide that a certain club was not to receive the AFL distributions but other clubs in similar situations were and with similar limited opportunities to generate funds due to AFL scheduling and other variables such as stadium deals.

 

[Goosecat]

Reference the Fitzroy example as case in point.

Question for Goosecat - acknowledging the commercial realities and the gradual acceptance overtime as you have argued - how would you feel about West Coast being relocated to the NT?

I'ts really a straw-man type question. Is West Coast stuck in a state with 10 teams competing for the same corporate dollar slowly eating each other?
There's no escaping that reality, everyone knows it'is unsustainable long term and it will change. Once again it's not a matter of if but when.
However I get the emotional point you are trying to make and there was obviously very similar feelings regarding South Melbourne and Fitzroy.
My point is, it doesn't matter in the long run. I know that's hard for some to grasp but it is simply fact.
Relocation works, we know it works, with evidence from all around the globe and locally. There will not be 10 teams in Victoria forever, I think most with a brain cell understand that and those that don't well.....enough said.
Emotionally difficult for some, but such is life unfortunately.

 

[Roylion]

Relocation works, we know it works, with evidence from all around the globe and locally.

There's been one relocated VFL-AFL club and they took years to become established with a great deal of AFL assistance, experimentation with private ownership. Very easily they could have fallen by the wayside.

There will not be 10 teams in Victoria forever,

It's been 26 years since Fitzroy left the competition and ever since then, every prediction that a Victorian club will go or more Victorian clubs will go has fallen by the wayside. When will the next club depart, who will it be and how will it happen?

 

[Jcpdragonx]

Cornes comments causing someone to resign would be the peak of his trolling career.

List management is a complete failure, too many similar type midfielders. Going Phillips over Logan made no sense in isolation but even less sense when they drafted two mids in Powell and Lazzaro straight after. Then they bring in Hugh backstabbing Greenwood on a retirement package.

All their midfielders have gone backwards, they need a review and outlie where the disconnect is. The game vs the Lions was the most uncompetitive game I've seen in 10 years.

 

[Elmer_Judd]

Cornes comments causing someone to resign would be the peak of his trolling career.

List management is a complete failure, too many similar type midfielders. Going Phillips over Logan made no sense in isolation but even less sense when they drafted two mids in Powell and Lazzaro straight after. Then they bring in Hugh backstabbing Greenwood on a retirement package.

All their midfielders have gone backwards, they need a review and outlie where the disconnect is. The game vs the Lions was the most uncompetitive game I've seen in 10 years.

Crows have done some pretty diabolical drafting in the last 5-10 years yourself (in fact, I would make a case it has been worse than North's)

 

[Jcpdragonx]

Crows have done some pretty diabolical drafting in the last 5-10 years yourself (in fact, I would make a case it has been worse than North's)

I'm just commenting on North, this thread has nothing to do with the Crows. But most Crows fans are aware our record in the first round over the past few years has been overall catastrophic.

 

[Rabish Binney]

I'm just commenting on North, this thread has nothing to do with the Crows. But most Crows fans are aware our record in the first round over the past few years has been overall catastrophic

Crows have done some pretty diabolical drafting in the last 5-10 years yourself (in fact, I would make a case it has been worse than North's)

From a supporter of a club that has won 5 wooden spoons since 2000 and made the finals only twice in the last 10 years.

Would have thought they'd be the last to slag off another club's recruiting?

 

[Schnitzengruben]

I would be resigning too if I took Will Phillips at pick 3.

 

[owen87]

I would be resigning too if I took Will Phillips at pick 3.

Thank god they did, otherwise an undersized midfielder screams out as an Essendon pick

 

[Anzacpaul]

Do you think Adelaide would offer Rachele + a pick for JHF?

Na, Rachele and TT would be our 2x untouchables.

I think we'd give 2022+2023 First, plus a middling player for JHF.

 

[Tim Evans Beard]

Na, Rachele and TT would be our 2x untouchables.

I think we'd give 2022+2023 First, plus a middling player for JHF.

That’s pretty close to value.

Could be 2 x top 5 picks and a spare for what looks like a 200 game a-grader.

 

[hilly]

Na, Rachele and TT would be our 2x untouchables.

I think we'd give 2022+2023 First, plus a middling player for JHF.

I am hoping he stays but that isn't a terrible offer.

 

[The_Wookie]

We already saw that they can't. The AFL's perfect scenario was North relocating to GC, and they offered well over $100,000,000 for them to relocate.

The only thing they could probably technically do is withold distribution, which wouldn't make sense given that North don't even get the most distribution within Victoria.

I'm not sure if that's even possible though, legally. The_Wookie ?

I think we need a FAQ for this board.

Clubs cant be moved without the approval of the clubs membership.

As always Roylion has answered just as well if not better than I can.

 

[Roylion]

I think we need a FAQ for this board.

Clubs cant be moved without the approval of the clubs membership.

Why don’t people understand this basic fact when they are proposing mergers / relocations of clubs? .

 

[The_Wookie]

	Total	over base
Adelaide	123.783​	28.218​
Brisbane	182.247​	86.682​
Carlton	143.923​	48.358​
Collingwood	139.828​	44.263​
Essendon	139.656​	44.091​
Fremantle	124.196​	28.631​
Geelong	129.652​	34.087​
Gold Coast	195.9​	100.335​
GWS	193.07​	103.687​
Hawthorn	129.245​	33.68​
Melbourne	161.388​	65.823​
Nth Melbourne	163.757​	68.192​
Pt Adelaide	145.519​	49.954​
Richmond	143.23​	47.665​
St Kilda	189.441​	93.876​
Sydney	138.095​	42.53​
West Coast	121.036​	25.471​
Western Bulldogs	175.009​	79.444​

data:

 

[Mr north man]

North has been running a net operating profit for quite a few years now. No team is gifted AFL distributions, it is TV Rights money earned by all clubs. Essentially it is revenue earned by the clubs.

Yes that NMFC TV Cheque-Foxtel comes in handy with the Tasmanian Cheque-Hobart games comes in handy at the end of the year.

 

[The_Wookie]

North has been running a net operating profit for quite a few years now. No team is gifted AFL distributions, it is TV Rights money earned by all clubs. Essentially it is revenue earned by the clubs.

It could be argued that some clubs rights are more valuable than others. If individual clubs went to market on their own, that might be very interesting indeed.

Total AFL Broadcast and media cash income since 2011 has come in at 3.291 billion. The average value per club comes in at 183.422m over the last 11 years. We're told that all AFL clubs are viable due to their being covered by the broadcast rights.

Several clubs have exceeded that 183m distribution target. Gold Coast 195.9m, GWS 193.07m, St Kilda 189.44m. Brisbane are just under at 182.247m, Bulldogs further back at 175m. North way back on 163m.

Distributions are only about 2/3rds of the rights revenue, so i guess the statement that all clubs are covered is correct in that regard.

While the Suns and Giants will have taken lots of revenue and that might be acceptable to the clubs, St Kilda is receiving double the additional revenue over the base of say your Pies/Blues/Bombers & Tigers, and more than 3 times that of West Coast./Adelaide/Freo/Hawks & Cats - and this is where some clubs are arcing up.