-
Guest - BigFooty Tipping 2026 - Get on! - $500 first prize - Weekly Prizes - Click to Join
PLUS Your club board comp is now up!
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Opening Round
The Golden Ticket - Official AFL on-seller of MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Poll:Should struggling AFL clubs be topped up financially
- Thread starter BW
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
There is no simple answer to this question. Like I think struggling AFL clubs should be supported, but not by just giving them a cash advance on an AFL dividend or by giving each club $2 million from the sale of Waverley (yeah, nice try Essendon).
Struggling clubs have to be helped to ensure the survival of the competition as a whole, but this should be done through a combination of gate equalisation, a fairer draw and smaller increases in the salary cap rather than cash handouts.
Struggling clubs have to be helped to ensure the survival of the competition as a whole, but this should be done through a combination of gate equalisation, a fairer draw and smaller increases in the salary cap rather than cash handouts.
T
The Hitman
Guest
Like Ian Dicker told me when I asked him about this, gate equalization makes for slacker efforts by clubs. Why promote a game when you don't get the full profits?
But the club needs to sustain 16 clubs...so it's a catch 22. Then again the AFL has propped up clubs before...but I wn't point the finger *cough* Syd *cough* ney!
But the club needs to sustain 16 clubs...so it's a catch 22. Then again the AFL has propped up clubs before...but I wn't point the finger *cough* Syd *cough* ney!
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2000
- Posts
- 13,107
- Reaction score
- 49
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Fitzroy
I think giving $2 million to each club from the sale of Waverley is a good idea, but I think it should be held from the clubs who currently can survive without it. The ones who need it to continue right now should have theirs given to them, the rest of the clubs should get it as they need it, if they do.
I know there is an enormous gap in this theory, in that the clubs who get their money now may in say, 8 or 9 years time, find themselves in the same position and have already used their share of the money, whereas other clubs may get theirs then. A bit unbalanced.
I am wondering what anyone thinks of that idea. Good or bad????
I know there is an enormous gap in this theory, in that the clubs who get their money now may in say, 8 or 9 years time, find themselves in the same position and have already used their share of the money, whereas other clubs may get theirs then. A bit unbalanced.
I am wondering what anyone thinks of that idea. Good or bad????
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
T
The Hitman
Guest
But then what of the clubs who have worked so hard to get in the financial situation they currently enjoy? The interstate clubs, Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Hawthorn, Richmond (I think?), don't deserve to be even with the likes of the Bulldogs and the Roos.
After Hawthorn and Melbourne almost merged, Hawthorn had to work their arses off to get to the financial well being we now enjoy. I don't think any of the more well off presidents will let that happen, and it would be a short term solution to a long term problem.
We need 16 clubs, but the struggling clubs need to get more members, need better fund raisers, and in the case of the Bulldogs, need to get out of Colonial...
The Hitman
After Hawthorn and Melbourne almost merged, Hawthorn had to work their arses off to get to the financial well being we now enjoy. I don't think any of the more well off presidents will let that happen, and it would be a short term solution to a long term problem.
We need 16 clubs, but the struggling clubs need to get more members, need better fund raisers, and in the case of the Bulldogs, need to get out of Colonial...
The Hitman
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2000
- Posts
- 86,851
- Reaction score
- 42,960
- Location
- Melbourne cricket ground. Australia
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Horks
Let's just structure the comp so thay clubs don't struggle
How about sharing the sponsorship around more fairly.
OK Carl Coll Ess Rich can play each other twice each year but how about comp for the Vic clubs who play non vic clubs more often as a consequence ?
How about when the 'G' is rebuilt let both home and away teams have soem reserved seating, function rooms etc ? there should be room for that.
How about sharing the sponsorship around more fairly.
OK Carl Coll Ess Rich can play each other twice each year but how about comp for the Vic clubs who play non vic clubs more often as a consequence ?
How about when the 'G' is rebuilt let both home and away teams have soem reserved seating, function rooms etc ? there should be room for that.
Why not just split the gate between all the clubs.
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2001
- Posts
- 2,383
- Reaction score
- 18
- Location
- Carlton
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Carlton
Because then there's no motivation for clubs to get people to come to games.
Having said that, I think there need to be a levy on the blockbuster clubs who get to play each other twice.
Having said that, I think there need to be a levy on the blockbuster clubs who get to play each other twice.
The AFL used the have the gate takings distrubuted equally to all the clubs before and that didn't stop clubs trying to get people to come to games. Saying that, how exactly can club get more people to matches anyway? I would think that winning is the only real way to get your attendances up.
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2000
- Posts
- 13,107
- Reaction score
- 49
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Fitzroy
Yeah but my point was that if all the clubs were put in the same financial position for the start of a season, THEN left to it, then we'd see which clubs really wanted to be in the comp. Everything would be even, everyone would have the same money to spend etc.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2001
- Posts
- 3,544
- Reaction score
- 2
- Location
- Beach on Indian Ocean
- Other Teams
- West Coast Eagles
The question is too broad to allow a simple yes/no answer so I haven't voted.
If it means, does the AFL give (as opposed to loan) money to a club in financial trouble, say the Bulldogs or St Kilda, with no strings attached, then I would vote no.
If it means that the AFL can negotiate to protect the 16 team competition for the next 5 years and protect the revenue stream from TV, while "encouraging" such clubs to be fiscally responsible by way of strings attached to loans, then I vote yes.
But even that has to be seen in the context of related issues such as revision to the forced 95% salary cap payment, player salaries, coaching & other staff salaries, draw fairness, etc. etc.
Incidentally this whingeing about Sydney is pointless now. It has some merit, but the AFL did try to protect its investment in Sydney eg by way of the work of Barassi, Schwab et al. Footy in Sydney is alive and well and that's a good thing.
I would like to see well-run clubs rewarded by non-intervention as much as possible, while the protection of the competition is paramount.
If it means, does the AFL give (as opposed to loan) money to a club in financial trouble, say the Bulldogs or St Kilda, with no strings attached, then I would vote no.
If it means that the AFL can negotiate to protect the 16 team competition for the next 5 years and protect the revenue stream from TV, while "encouraging" such clubs to be fiscally responsible by way of strings attached to loans, then I vote yes.
But even that has to be seen in the context of related issues such as revision to the forced 95% salary cap payment, player salaries, coaching & other staff salaries, draw fairness, etc. etc.
Incidentally this whingeing about Sydney is pointless now. It has some merit, but the AFL did try to protect its investment in Sydney eg by way of the work of Barassi, Schwab et al. Footy in Sydney is alive and well and that's a good thing.
I would like to see well-run clubs rewarded by non-intervention as much as possible, while the protection of the competition is paramount.
