Ross Oakley - Go Forth and Multiply

[The_Wookie]

If only the Roys were given access to such funding and league policies aiding sustainability.

It wasnt really economical for the league to do so before Seven paid for the 1998-2001 rights for a song, and included millions in up front payments for first and last rights for 2002. The the sale of Waverly and the massive rights deal in 2002 gave the league the room it really needed.

 

[Roysforever]

It wasnt really economical for the league to do so before Seven paid for the 1998-2001 rights for a song, and included millions in up front payments for first and last rights for 2002. The the sale of Waverly and the massive rights deal in 2002 gave the league the room it really needed.

You refer to the funding component there. Certainly there were adopted league policies which influenced our survival in the competition.

 

[Pugz89]

Look I am not calling for any clubs to get cut but 10 sides in vic is probably to many. The comp would work better with 16 sides 8 in Vic 8 in the rest of Australia

Thanks for volunteering. I mean you are on the downward trajectory over the past 6yrs, maybe it's for the best.

 

[Farm Boy]

The AFL has actively supported Melbourne based clubs since the early 2000's.

Many have had multi-million dollars amounts given to them, through the AFL's then named "Competitive Balance Fund".

A selection of AFL grants to various clubs from the C.B.F reads as follows:
2002: Western Bulldogs - $1 million
2003: Western Bulldogs - $1 million, North Melbourne - $1 million
2004: Western Bulldogs - $1.5 million, North Melbourne - $1 million
2005: Melbourne $1.5 million + $1.5 million retrospectively, Western Bulldogs $1.5 million, North Melbourne $1 million.
2006: Carlton - $2.1 million
2007: Western Bulldogs $1.7 million, North Melbourne $1.4 million, Melbourne $1 million, Sydney Swans $0.7 million, Richmond $0.4 million, Hawthorn $0.25 million, Port Adelaide $0.25 million
2008: Melbourne - $250,000, Western Bulldogs $1.7 million, North Melbourne $1.4 million
2009: Melbourne - $1 million, Port Adelaide - $1 million

Totals 2002-2009
Western Bulldogs - $8.4 million
North Melbourne - $5.8 million
Melbourne - $5.25 million
Carlton - $2.1 million

Without those funds, the Western Bulldogs, and perhaps a couple of other clubs, wouldn't exist today as an independent entities in the AFL competition.

Good post. Great effort.

 

[Established1870]

Well, you Vics might hate him, but he pushed Port into the AFL, so he's fine in my books.

Just remember even today debate is raised over the relevancy of certain clubs in Melbourne, and that debate has fair points to it as well. Maybe he was on to something?

 

[Garlic muncher]

And more corrupt than ever.

Never change lol

 

[TedDougChris]

You refer to the funding component there. Certainly there were adopted league policies which influenced our survival in the competition.

Agreed. Some of those policies were again repeated with the 'encouragement' used to get poorer clubs to sign up at Etihad... Move there or else you can't play your games anywhere.... Lions never had a chance, the noose was just progressively tightened and their options reduced....

 

[TedDougChris]

Look I am not calling for any clubs to get cut but 10 sides in vic is probably to many. The comp would work better with 16 sides 8 in Vic 8 in the rest of Australia

Why not take it further, let's cull the bottom 4 Melbourne based sides at the moment, it'll improve the standard of the competition too - as well as making things like the draw/fixture/travel arrangements fairer

 

[Leeda]

Now and forever more.. never again... we rule everyone matters and every club matters now and forever.

 

[NathanMX]

Why not take it further, let's cull the bottom 4 Melbourne based sides at the moment, it'll improve the standard of the competition too - as well as making things like the draw/fixture/travel arrangements fairer

Essendon, Collingwood, Carlton, Richmond goodbye then?

Man I hope you guys are betting on a membership increase of around 200,000 to make up the shortfall after your success

 

[TedDougChris]

Essendon, Collingwood, Carlton, Richmond goodbye then?

Man I hope you guys are betting on a membership increase of around 200,000 to make up the shortfall after your success

Fewer clubs means more revenue to the remainder (or so we are reliably told by advocates of the reduction in club number supporters).....

 

[Blue1980]

Well, you Vics might hate him, but he pushed Port into the AFL, so he's fine in my books.

Just remember even today debate is raised over the relevancy of certain clubs in Melbourne, and that debate has fair points to it as well. Maybe he was on to something?

Point is our city is so football crazy we can sustain these teams. The only one I would be thinking is in trouble in even the medium term is North.

Also remember most of these struggling Vic sides aren't currently as bad off as Port were a few years ago or Brisbane are now

 

[Blue1980]

Fewer clubs means more revenue to the remainder (or so we are reliably told by advocates of the reduction in club number supporters).....

Yes because people are mindless drones who will just pick a new team once their one doesn't exist anymore like nothing ever happened.

The logic of mergers was idiotic to me as a kid and my stance hasn't changed. It took Melbourne and Hawthorn's debacle to scare the AFL straight.

The whole idea of a merged club being some sort of super team was laughable at best.

 

[Dan26]

The OP and a few others in this thread are being very disrespectful of Oakley.

The time that Ross Oakley was in charge was the one period in Australian Rules Football history that saw more change than any other. These days, a drovers dog could run the AFL. Back then, tough decisions needed to be made. REALLY tough decisions. In 1986 the majority of the 12 VFL clubs were broke, there was no national competition and crowds were stagnating. The game needed to be grown.

Some very important decisions were made around that time that gave us the thriving competition we have today, and Oakley is one of the custodians of that proud history. There were arguably errors of judgement in regards to mergers and so forth but you've got to look at those decision in the context of the time. The clubs weren't making money, and the competition needed to expand to become a true national league. It's only through the billion dollar TV deals we have now, which is only achieved under the backdrop of a national competition which Oakley championed, that clubs that were threatened with mergers back then can today thrive and prosper.

 

[HawkMongrel]

The OP and a few others in this thread are being very disrespectful of Oakley.

The time that Ross Oakley was in charge was the one period in Australian Rules Football history that saw more change than any other. These days, a drovers dog could run the AFL. Back then, tough decisions needed to be made. REALLY tough decisions. In 1986 the majority of the 12 VFL clubs were broke, there was no national competition and crowds were stagnating. The game needed to be grown.

Some very important decisions were made around that time that gave us the thriving competition we have today, and Oakley is one of the custodians of that proud history. There were arguably errors of judgement in regards to mergers and so forth but you've got to look at those decision in the context of the time. The clubs weren't making money, and the competition needed to expand to become a true national league. It's only through the billion dollar TV deals we have now, which is only achieved under the backdrop of a national competition which Oakley championed, that clubs that were threatened with mergers back then can today thrive and prosper.

Oh well of course, it was all brilliant, but for any emotion people may have had.

Screw the supporters of the clubs that he wanted to burn off, it's all good because the big boys were safe!

 

[Dan26]

Oh well of course, it was all brilliant, but for any emotion people may have had.

Screw the supporters of the clubs that he wanted to burn off, it's all good because the big boys were safe!

He was only doing what he thought was good for the game at that time in history. It was a period of unparalleled change in the sport. The AFL competition as it stands today owes more to Ross Oakley than perhaps any other administrator.

 

[Mattdougie]

The AFL has actively supported Melbourne based clubs since the early 2000's.

Many have had multi-million dollars amounts given to them, through the AFL's then named "Competitive Balance Fund".

A selection of AFL grants to various clubs from the C.B.F reads as follows:
2002: Western Bulldogs - $1 million
2003: Western Bulldogs - $1 million, North Melbourne - $1 million
2004: Western Bulldogs - $1.5 million, North Melbourne - $1 million
2005: Melbourne $1.5 million + $1.5 million retrospectively, Western Bulldogs $1.5 million, North Melbourne $1 million.
2006: Carlton - $2.1 million
2007: Western Bulldogs $1.7 million, North Melbourne $1.4 million, Melbourne $1 million, Sydney Swans $0.7 million, Richmond $0.4 million, Hawthorn $0.25 million, Port Adelaide $0.25 million
2008: Melbourne - $250,000, Western Bulldogs $1.7 million, North Melbourne $1.4 million
2009: Melbourne - $1 million, Port Adelaide - $1 million

Totals 2002-2009
Western Bulldogs - $8.4 million
North Melbourne - $5.8 million
Melbourne - $5.25 million
Carlton - $2.1 million

Without those funds, the Western Bulldogs, and perhaps a couple of other clubs, wouldn't exist today as an independent entities in the AFL competition.

And neither would

Port
Brisbane
Gold Coast
Swans
Or Giants who live off AFL revenue

Your point?

 

[Mattdougie]

He was only doing what he thought was good for the game at that time in history. It was a period of unparalleled change in the sport. The AFL competition as it stands today owes more to Ross Oakley than perhaps any other administrator.

You really have no idea mate sorry.

He had a clear hatred of the smaller clubs and tried to squash them to improve the bigger ones.

He did not care about the AFL he wanted the bigger clubs to be stronger amd especially his Carlton. Why do you think so many teams played at Craptus Oval for so long????

The dogs defied him and he screwed Chris Grant in retaliation.

The man deserves nothing but hatred and disgust

 

[Seedsfan]

Why not take it further, let's cull the bottom 4 Melbourne based sides at the moment, it'll improve the standard of the competition too - as well as making things like the draw/fixture/travel arrangements fairer

Look I don't want any clubs to get chopped big, small good or bad. I just think that a 16 team competition with 8 Victorian sides would be best for the game

 

[Seedsfan]

Maybe. The issue is that these clubs are more than simply franchises, as in some of the US sports. Some of the older supporters I saw at and after the GF would have been denied this moment after decades of support, and that shouldn't sit well with anyone involved in footy if they genuinely care about the game and the communities it is inextricably linked to.

Bottom line is they won't reduce the size of the comp anytime soon - 9 matches a week means more broadcast dollars. If anything it'll be a third WA team and a Tas team that's next, bringing us to 20.

We don't have the depth of talent for a 20 team comp. Also I don't get the notion of a third Perth side. Yes they have a big population but where will the fans come from? You would think by now everyone would either be Eagles or Dockers

 

[bombersfan4000]

We don't have the depth of talent for a 20 team comp. Also I don't get the notion of a third Perth side. Yes they have a big population but where will the fans come from? You would think by now everyone would either be Eagles or Dockers

the population of WA is approx half the size of Vic. financially the state it self funds it self whilst at least 1/3 of the rest of the country. a third or even a 4th team in Perth is easily achievable

 

[Roylion]

And neither would

Port
Brisbane
Gold Coast
Swans
Or Giants who live off AFL revenue

Your point?

I would have thought that was obvious in a thread about Ross Oakley and AFL policy in the 1990s..

The AFL has actively supported Melbourne based clubs since the early 2000's.

Without those AFL funds, the Western Bulldogs, and perhaps a couple of other Melbourne based clubs, wouldn't exist today as an independent entities in the AFL competition. There would have been no second VFL-AFL premiership for the Dogs.

 

[Saint12]

He was only doing what he thought was good for the game at that time in history. It was a period of unparalleled change in the sport. The AFL competition as it stands today owes more to Ross Oakley than perhaps any other administrator.

Pretty sure he supported and played for St Kilda

 

[Roysforever]

The OP and a few others in this thread are being very disrespectful of Oakley.

The time that Ross Oakley was in charge was the one period in Australian Rules Football history that saw more change than any other. These days, a drovers dog could run the AFL. Back then, tough decisions needed to be made. REALLY tough decisions. In 1986 the majority of the 12 VFL clubs were broke, there was no national competition and crowds were stagnating. The game needed to be grown.

Some very important decisions were made around that time that gave us the thriving competition we have today, and Oakley is one of the custodians of that proud history. There were arguably errors of judgement in regards to mergers and so forth but you've got to look at those decision in the context of the time. The clubs weren't making money, and the competition needed to expand to become a true national league. It's only through the billion dollar TV deals we have now, which is only achieved under the backdrop of a national competition which Oakley championed, that clubs that were threatened with mergers back then can today thrive and prosper.

No doubt Oakley was CEO during a very difficult period. However he failed to recognise the biggest asset of the VFL/AFL - the clubs themselves. Despite crowd difficulties Gold Coast and GWS have endured in their beginnings they are nonetheless viewed as valuable and essential in today's league purely for their contribution to broadcast deals. By introducing and adopting policies which increasingly threatened the survival of established clubs Oakley and his henchmen lacked this key foresight component for the long term sustainability of the league.

 

[Hawkthorn33]

Lol poor Hawks fans. Desperate to be relevant. The Bulldogs are where it's at now. Long live Footscray.

Long live Footscray until they start winning multiple consecutive premierships and then big footy tall poppy syndrome will kick in and everyone will want their heads.

Don't ever change Big Footy, Don't ever change