Private Ownership of an AFL Club

[VFL13]

It would stop the obvious corruption of self interest that occurs every year.

 

[Kwality]

Maybe so but his Crown Casino is the biggest in the Southern Hemisphere, let alone in Australia & dominates in Melbourne. Given the concerns over Crown's behaviours & their close proximity to the movers & shakers in Melbourne, being close to the gambling income obsession of the AFL itself would a concern to many people one would think. It must be a worry that they have such a concentration of money & 'power' to the detriment of many in the community

That must also be a concern given the AFL's much touted 'community' role.

Just another example of cred at AFL HQ, Gil following Andy. Talk the talk but only walk the walk when it suits.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Because god forbid that senior execs at one organisation in the entertainment industry would have a comfortable relationship with another organisation in the same industry (not sure if you've ever been, but crown isn't just gambling) that they have considerable dealings with.

Unless of course your quotes around comfortable were trying to imply something else, you're just stating something that is quite reasonable and indeed, would be expected. (as would some board and senior execs switching between organisations).

What is the ratio of crowns gambling profits vs non gambling profits?

 

[telsor]

What is the ratio of crowns gambling profits vs non gambling profits?

Wouldn't have the slightest, I imagine it's primarily from gambling, but the interaction with organisations within the entertainment industry would often involve those other elements (pretty sure the brownlow is held there for example). Crown would also deal with the AFL (and many other groups) to arrange outside entertainment for their high rollers and hotel guests.

Point is they have enough dealings outside of gaming that they'd have plenty of contact with the AFL at many levels.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Wouldn't have the slightest, I imagine it's primarily from gambling, but the interaction with organisations within the entertainment industry would often involve those other elements (pretty sure the brownlow is held there for example). Crown would also deal with the AFL (and many other groups) to arrange outside entertainment for their high rollers and hotel guests.

Point is they have enough dealings outside of gaming that they'd have plenty of contact with the AFL at many levels.

Ratio matters. If 90% of profits are from gambling (for eg) revenue from hotels, restaurants, retail, and clubs means jack s**t

 

[telsor]

Ratio matters. If 90% of profits are from gambling (for eg) revenue from hotels, restaurants, retail, and clubs means jack s**t

Richmond just reported $65M in revenue. Both 'hospitality and gaming' and 'health clubs' each recorded around 10% of that revenue (a bit over, but whatever). I doubt anyone at Richmond would declare those figures to mean "jack s**t".

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Richmond just reported $65M in revenue. Both 'hospitality and gaming' and 'health clubs' each recorded around 10% of that revenue (a bit over, but whatever). I doubt anyone at Richmond would declare those figures to mean "jack s**t".

Casinos are notorious for using accom, food, and booze as a loss leader to get punters in the doors of the casino floor

This is why profit matters

You say its as diversified entertainment company, prove it by showing its profits are diversified and not gaming centric

 

[madmug]

I think Crown bet is the worry. The AFL are heavily involved in the online betting scourge via their partnership. Again, not a good position given the AFL's continual spruiking about its community values.

 

[Rob]

I think Crown bet is the worry. The AFL are heavily involved in the online betting scourge via their partnership. Again, not a good position given the AFL's continual spruiking about its community values.

It's not quite that simple. A partnership of some sort would assist the AFL in monitoring what's going on. It's not like betting would go away if the AFL suddenly decreed that they are dropping all association with gambling companies.

That's not to say it's right either, but it's not as easy as the AFL having any real control over the industry that it could wipe it out with the stroke of a pen.

 

[telsor]

Casinos are notorious for using accom, food, and booze as a loss leader to get punters in the doors of the casino floor

This is why profit matters

You say its as diversified entertainment company, prove it by showing its profits are diversified and not gaming centric

Yes, exactly! They use all those things to build their profits. They all contribute, directly and indirectly, which is why saying that Hotel profits are X doesn't matter.

If they 'only' make the "jack s**t" 10% of the profits as you mentioned, but without them, 50% of the casino's patrons/profits wouldn't be there, then how much did they really contribute to those profits?

As I also mentioned, it goes both ways...They'd want to get hold of a lot of the other entertainment organisations products as well...A high roller who wants to go to the footy will expect a top quality seat (usually several) and usually on short notice. Crown having good relations with groups like the AFL makes them money, and I dare say it works both ways, all of which comes down to having a good working relationship.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

It's not quite that simple. A partnership of some sort would assist the AFL in monitoring what's going on. It's not like betting would go away if the AFL suddenly decreed that they are dropping all association with gambling companies.

That's not to say it's right either, but it's not as easy as the AFL having any real control over the industry that it could wipe it out with the stroke of a pen.

There is no need for the AFL to have a gambling partner, people will bet on footy whether the AFL partner with them or not as you say.
But the AFL take the sponsorship and then get on their high horse and tell everyone they can’t gamble in their industry. Bit hypocritical. But that is how the AFL roll, do as we say not as we do.

 

[telsor]

There is no need for the AFL to have a gambling partner, people will bet on footy whether the AFL partner with them or not as you say.
But the AFL take the sponsorship and then get on their high horse and tell everyone they can’t gamble in their industry. Bit hypocritical. But that is how the AFL roll, do as we say not as we do.

There are two parts to it.

The stated reason is that by working with the various betting organisations, those same groups help find players and officials betting on games...The idea being to work with organisations you don't like in order to find bigger problems (from an AFL integrity perspective at least). I doubt anyone 'likes' that, but it does make a certain degree of sense.

Not sure there needs to be an 'official partner' in order to do that (probably doesn't), but the sport that puts on the shows that generate all that money wants a slice....which makes sense, but as you say, is rather hypocritical when put against their stated position on gambling (and any number of other social issues).

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Yes, exactly! They use all those things to build their profits. They all contribute, directly and indirectly, which is why saying that Hotel profits are X doesn't matter.

If they 'only' make the "jack s**t" 10% of the profits as you mentioned, but without them, 50% of the casino's patrons/profits wouldn't be there, then how much did they really contribute to those profits?

As I also mentioned, it goes both ways...They'd want to get hold of a lot of the other entertainment organisations products as well...A high roller who wants to go to the footy will expect a top quality seat (usually several) and usually on short notice. Crown having good relations with groups like the AFL makes them money, and I dare say it works both ways, all of which comes down to having a good working relationship.

Your example has all the profit coming from gaming

Reality is the entertainment s**t wouldnt exist without the casino, pretending otherwise is a lie

 

[telsor]

Your example has all the profit coming from gaming

Reality is the entertainment s**t wouldnt exist without the casino, pretending otherwise is a lie

One hand feeds the other. The Casino also wouldn't exist without the 'entertainment s**t' (at least, not on anywhere near the same scale).

 

[Ned_Flanders]

One hand feeds the other. The Casino also wouldn't exist without the 'entertainment s**t' (at least, not on anywhere near the same scale).

Bullshit

The only reason they have the entertainment s**t is to get punters in the door

They are a gambling monolith, not some benign warm and fuzzy entertaiment provider. The attempts by crown and its allies to white wash what they really are is pretty pathetic

 

[telsor]

Bullshit

The only reason they have the entertainment s**t is to get punters in the door

They are a gambling monolith, not some benign warm and fuzzy entertaiment provider. The attempts by crown and its allies to white wash what they really are is pretty pathetic

Do you think that isn't important to the business?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Do you think that isn't important to the business?

No, i dont

There is a reason the govt mandated it

 

[telsor]

No, i dont

There is a reason the govt mandated it

Ever been to Vegas?
Lots of casino's, some have all those extras, some don't.

Guess which ones make more money?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Ever been to Vegas?
Lots of casino's, some have all those extras, some don't.

Guess which ones make more money?

Let me ask a question

If you took out all the shops, restaurants, bars, and hotel, would casino patronage fall more than if you took out the casino and just left it with the rest?

Its the same with chaddy. Take out the shops and the restaurants and entertainment would die.

But yeah, gambling is only a small side business for tbe casino, james would be proud of you

 

[telsor]

Let me ask a question

If you took out all the shops, restaurants, bars, and hotel, would casino patronage fall more than if you took out the casino and just left it with the rest?

Its the same with chaddy. Take out the shops and the restaurants and entertainment would die.

But yeah, gambling is only a small side business for tbe casino, james would be proud of you

I never said gambling was only a small side business to the casino, I said the other things in the complex were significant.

If you ever open up a business of your own, remind me never to invest in it.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I never said gambling was only a small side business to the casino, I said the other things in the complex were significant.

If you ever open up a business of your own, remind me never to invest in it.

Given you think tassie is an economic s**t hole and vic clubs should be financially supported above all others, i dont think you have the vision to invest in anything other than a scratchie

 

[Bokonon_]

I actually doubt Casinos make any significant profit outside of gambling, or want to. They can throw money at entertainment, food even alchohol sales to encourage punters and do.
Onn a smaller scale NSW clubs have always had pokies and the revenue. One of two things inevitably happen.
1. The not for profit governance breaks down without a motivated stake holder and they are robbed blind by their management.
2. They find themselves swimming in cash. I was a social member of Auburn RSL in the eighties and their annual reports were incredible with large sums in cash accounts. They ran the bar at close to break even, the Bistro at a loss.
They even had a formal dining room which was under utilised because jacket and tie were required. If you were prepared to jump this hurdle free meal vouchers for a three course dinner and bottle of wine were freely available.

They redeveloped the foyer with different fishtanks and fountain combinations every couple of years. Even built a world class snooker room with seating for hundreds of spectators and facilities for filming that was never ultilisedto my knowledge. I could go on.

Gambling brings in big bucks, all the beneficiaries are interested in is not disrupting the rivers of cash. Everything else simply does not matter in comparison.

 

[telsor]

Given you think tassie is an economic s**t hole and vic clubs should be financially supported above all others, i dont think you have the vision to invest in anything other than a scratchie

Clearly I don't need to participate in this discussion, as you're just (incorrectly) making up my opinions for me.

I'd ask that you please stop lying about me.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

There isn't enough money in AFL or other sports in Oz to run it at a profit, payout decent dividends and still be at the top end of spending across the main expenditure items for all 18 clubs.

Most markets in Australia are Oligopoly markets ie 2 to 4 players. We have 4 major banks because of government rules nor market forces. We have 2 major retailers because of market forces. We have 3 major airlines because of market forces. We have 2 major brewers because of market forces. We have 3 commercial TV networks because of market forces and lucky to have the 3rd one at the moment. And so on

A true private market for footy would see about 4 to 6 clubs in the AFL and a s**t load in a secondary league struggling to keep up.

Here are the financials for the EPL for clubs at the end of 2015 season, which is pretty much a world league, it attracts investors from around the world and has the highest value of international broadcast rights of any league in the world. In the late 1980's and early days of the Premier League in the 1990's a lot of clubs traded on the stock exchange. That just didn't work because the clubs made loses and never met forecasts. Now they are owned by 1 to a handful of individuals or organisations and their shares don't trade on a stock exchange. The EPL unlike Spanish and Italian leagues share TV revenues made by the EPL.

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ue-finances-club-by-club-breakdown-david-conn

Edit 2015-16 EPL financial results
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jun/01/premier-league-finances-club-by-club

The NFL are owned by one or two individuals or a family, and for historical reasons Green Bay Packers have shareholders as was set up that way in 1923 but they don't trade, you get no dividends and no securities protection laws, just some voting rights. This way the NFL can control which stable billionaires can own teams and they aren't subject to market forces and they share TV revenues signed by NFL, unlike MLB and NBA that allow for home market TV deals.

Maybe when Oz population gets to 60 million people and the big Euro countries stay in that 60-100m people range, might Oz be wealthy enough to have a private owners market for AFL clubs.

 

[NoobPie]

There isn't enough money in AFL or other sports in Oz to run it at a profit, payout decent dividends and still be at the top end of spending across the main expenditure items for all 18 clubs.

Most markets in Australia are Oligopoly markets ie 2 to 4 players. We have 4 major banks because of government rules nor market forces. We have 2 major retailers because of market forces. We have 3 major airlines because of market forces. We have 2 major brewers because of market forces. We have 3 commercial TV networks because of market forces and lucky to have the 3rd one at the moment. And so on

A true private market for footy would see about 4 to 6 clubs in the AFL and a s**t load in a secondary league struggling to keep up.

Here are the financials for the EPL for clubs at the end of 2015 season, which is pretty much a world league, it attracts investors from around the world and has the highest value of international broadcast rights of any league in the world. In the late 1980's and early days of the Premier League in the 1990's a lot of clubs traded on the stock exchange. That just didn't work because the clubs made loses and never met forecasts. Now they are owned by 1 to a handful of individuals or organisations and their shares don't trade on a stock exchange. The EPL unlike Spanish and Italian leagues share TV revenues made by the EPL.

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ue-finances-club-by-club-breakdown-david-conn

The NFL are owned by one or two individuals or a family, and for historical reasons Green Bay Packers have shareholders as was set up that way in 1923 but they don't trade, you get no dividends and no securities protection laws, just some voting rights. This way the NFL can control which stable billionaires can own teams and they aren't subject to market forces and they share TV revenues signed by NFL, unlike MLB and NBA that allow for home market TV deals.

Maybe when Oz population gets to 60 million people and the big Euro countries stay in that 60-100m people range, might Oz be wealthy enough to have a private owners market for AFL clubs.

The reason there is no private ownership in the Australian football is due to historio-cultural reasons, not financial reasons, IMHO.

There very much is private "club" ownership in sport in Australia - in soccer and basketball for instance. As much as anything, this private ownership is actually a response to insufficient revenues in these sports

Likewise the VFL/AFL's very brief flirtation with private ownership occurred due to financial pressures rather than perceived opportunities.

The US and England have a particular history of private ownership in their sports that is not the case in Australia.

The AFL clubs are likely to have pulled in a billion dollars in revenues this year and the AFL half that again (excluding club distributions). This in an environment where the costs are as under control as most other pro-sports anywhere. What benefit would there be in opening up to private ownership?