Ross Oakley - Go Forth and Multiply

[Doss]

I hope he squirms every time a club he tried to kill off does well. He probably doesn't, because I don't think the man has a conscience, but he should.

 

[Seedsfan]

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

I know the numbers are good but it is an footy city I just can't see where they would get support from.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

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.

Carlton were refused access to the CBF. The figure we got in 2006 for memory, was a $1m bribe to move to Etihad and cover off Princes Park existing contracts and $1.1m for Princes Park rent/expenses/maintenance because the Umpires were based there.

 

[kriles76]

Odd to bring up a guy that hasn't been at the helm for 20 years.
Hawthorn didn't win this year, no need to try and make them relevant with a strenuous link to the current premiers.
He had a point that there are/were too many Vic teams and some of them struggle to survive. It's natural that supporters of the teams in question will feel aggrieved. Would Hawthorn be where they are today if they hadn't been given a kick up the bum and scare from merger talks? It's possible that Oakley kickstarted the whole thing in a round-about way.

Really?

 

[Randomizor]

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

And then one year they'll go out in straight sets and become totally irrelevant again.

Cycle of footy continues.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Really?

Yes. Two teams that were struggling two decades ago and were spoken about as possible teams that could merge with other struggling teams. Both now happen to have won a flag a good 20 years after the guy responsible left the game.
It's an awkward way of trying to link the Hawks to the Doggies' flag. Let's not pretend that one flag between Melbourne and the Dogs in 20+ years has somehow vindicated everyone's hatred towards Oakley and his vision of a national game. Those clubs have struggled on and off the field in that time.

I haven't seen any Demons, Doggies, Fitzroy or Brisbane supporters carrying on about Oakley (excluding replying to this thread).

 

[Hawkthorn33]

And then one year they'll go out in straight sets and become totally irrelevant again.

Cycle of footy continues.

I don't think a Fremantle supporter should be talking about other clubs becoming irrelevant

 

[Randomizor]

I don't think a Fremantle supporter should be talking about other clubs becoming irrelevant

 

[Blue1980]

Pretty sure he supported and played for St Kilda

No we should change history, he was doing it all for Carlton! Probably helped us pay over the cap too!

 

[Whats a Battle]

I like how even John Elliott hates Collins

John Elliott is a saint compared to Collo.

 

[kriles76]

Yes. Two teams that were struggling two decades ago and were spoken about as possible teams that could merge with other struggling teams. Both now happen to have won a flag a good 20 years after the guy responsible left the game.
It's an awkward way of trying to link the Hawks to the Doggies' flag. Let's not pretend that one flag between Melbourne and the Dogs in 20+ years has somehow vindicated everyone's hatred towards Oakley and his vision of a national game. Those clubs have struggled on and off the field in that time.

I haven't seen any Demons, Doggies, Fitzroy or Brisbane supporters carrying on about Oakley (excluding replying to this thread).

So there was a strenuous link first; and now an awkward link.

Perhaps subtly, there may even be a hint of a tenuous link.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

So there was a strenuous link first; and now an awkward link.

Perhaps subtly, there may even be a hint of a tenuous link.

What's your point? Are you implying that I used the wrong word? I'm happy with strenuous.

 

[Garlic muncher]

I know the numbers are good but it is an footy city

That is actually the point

A third team in WA would be better than probably anywhere else in Australia.

30 k of members on year one

 

[Blue1980]

That is actually the point

A third team in WA would be better than probably anywhere else in Australia.

30 k of members on year one

Who would go for them? Why would anyone go for them? Who would they represent? Would 30k just join up for fun?

 

[Garlic muncher]

Who would go for them? Why would anyone go for them? Who would they represent? Would 30k just join up for fun?

Plenty of options, and yep some people would join for fun

 

[Pessimistic]

Odd to bring up a guy that hasn't been at the helm for 20 years.
Hawthorn didn't win this year, no need to try and make them relevant with a strenuous link to the current premiers.
He had a point that there are/were too many Vic teams and some of them struggle to survive. It's natural that supporters of the teams in question will feel aggrieved. Would Hawthorn be where they are today if they hadn't been given a kick up the bum and scare from merger talks? It's possible that Oakley kickstarted the whole thing in a round-about way.

Peter Gordon has a point. Ross and co ran the whole thing into the ground to get a couple of their beloved mergers. Hes the Donald Trump of the 80s footy.

so please save the "he was a wily old fox" bulldust

 

[Pessimistic]

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.

Id say mergers were4 fudamental wouldnt you? Ross banged on about "Lets take the emotion out of it" Throubel is, Emotion is the essence of the produt the VFL/AFL is selling

Pure snake oil salesman.
I love that a couple of the accounting firms who handed over pro merger reports back then have themselves merged or gone to the wall

 

[Blue1980]

Plenty of options, and yep some people would join for fun

Could probably reform Fitzroy with similar success if not better

 

[Doss]

Pure snake oil salesman.

The most succinct description of him.

He and Graeme Samuel have a lot to answer for some of their actions during that period.

 

[Pessimistic]

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.

Whats the effect of these clubs having a core business at etihad which leaks money away to third parties? Oakley and Collin's parting gift, which vic clubs will finally be shot of in another ten years

 

[Pessimistic]

The most succinct description of him.

He and Graeme Samuel have a lot to answer for some of their actions during that period.

At least its pure snake oil, no cheap blends.

 

[bombersfan4000]

I hope he squirms every time a club he tried to kill off does well. He probably doesn't, because I don't think the man has a conscience, but he should.

It's called business several of the Melbourne teams are on life support

 

[Doss]

It's called business several of the Melbourne teams are on life support

There is difference between keeping teams on life support and holding a pillow over their face, which is exactly what he did to Fitzroy and tried to do to a couple of others.

So no it's just not a mere business. Clubs are actually more than that, it's just that those with dollar signs in their eyes like Oakley refuse to understand or acknowledge it.

 

[Pessimistic]

It's called business several of the Melbourne teams are on life support

Cos they are saddled with ridiculous stadium arrangements. and the AFL controls the broadcast money. whats the comparison, because attendances and TVaudiences are world standard for all teams

 

[TedDougChris]

Cos they are saddled with ridiculous stadium arrangements. and the AFL controls the broadcast money. whats the comparison, because attendances and TVaudiences are world standard for all teams

I've said it a 1000 times on here and I'll say it again (not having a go at you mate, just it needs to be said in this thread):

Around the time Phil Walsh was tragically killed, the Dogs, Saints and Hawks were negotiating with a new significant sponsor - who would only pick one club. They picked the Hawks, largely due the 'Prime Time' TV exposure they would receive. At this stage, we hadn't had a Friday night game for 2 - 3 years. What ****ing hope do we have (or did we have, as things are slightly different now) when the AFL controls and manipulates - not just who plays who, but when they play and how much TV exposure they get ?

They also prevent us from playing home games at Geelong to generate additional revenue, have saddled us (and a few others) with the paying off of Etihad - for the benefit of all clubs.

Innovate we are told, but when we do - the AFL says '**** off, back in your box'.

The whole idea that we are always on life support comes from the fact the AFL controls and restricts the growth of certain clubs to line their own pockets. Sure, the historic size (support) of some clubs is based on years of success, support and good management (which we can't always claim) - but preventing any form of level playing field just to ensure a bonus to AFL executives is appallingly contradictory behaviour for a sporting code.

There will always be bigger and smaller clubs. But the smaller clubs are deliberately kept small to benefit both the AFL, the executive and the bigger clubs pockets....