Scrounging season starts

[Frodo]

Reported this morning

Bulldogs begging for $2M from AFL to put them on their feet (paws)

Saints are trading at a $400K loss so far and need a handout (and a prayer or two)

 

[GOALden Hawk]

And does anyone believe they have been that badly run they should be losing that much money? Even if the Bulldogs were to pay only 95% of the salary cap (which is a stupid rule anyway) they'd still make a loss, as would most Victorian clubs (along with Freo) this season.

Clearly the AFL has to do something about the equalisation policy, because it's not working at all.

And well done to Clinton Casey for again proving he makes a great president....so long as he keeps his mouth shut.

Doesn't he realise how hypocritical it looks saying there should be no changes to the current system and if any team is struggling - then tough??? He seems to be taking the attitude if Richmond can get out of trouble, any team should be able to. But he seems to forget how quickly situations can change. Who would have predicted at the start of the year Carlton would be budgeting for a loss and Hawthorn a $1 million profit?

And for the Tiger president to get stuck into struggling clubs, then in the same interview demand $1.5 million from the AFL for redevelopment of Punt Road Who is he kidding? I don't remember the AFL giving money to any other AFL club to help 'redevelop' their facilities. Or is this just Richmond's sly way of demanding money without looking like they are asking for a handout?

Clinton Casey should realise Victorian presidents that don't support or look out for other clubs in Victoria will not last very long.

 

[Darky]

Didn't Richmond trade their way out of debt with a tin rattle?

 

[GOALden Hawk]

Correct, I believe it was a campaign something along the lines of SOS (Save Our Skins). I don't have a problem with that, I do have a problem with Clinton Casey seeming to think Richmond are superior to other teams in Victoria.

To me it seemed like he was insinuating any club in trouble had obviously been poorly managed and didn't deserve a thing. I think maybe he should look at his own club and ask how can a team with such a massive supporter base have a smaller membership than Hawthorn? Even Essendon's president is calling for a change to the equalisation policy, has Clinton been living on another planet the past few months?

The link to the article is below.


http://www.afl.com.au/news/story_236330.htm

 

[daddy_4_eyes]

The problem isn't the equalisation policy, its the 10 teams in victoria problem.

In a city with 3.5million citizens, of which for example 50% follow footy, and of that 50% only 80% follow a victorian team. That leaves 1.4million people to divide between 10 teams. 140,000 people per team. How can a club make the several million dollars it needs to run the club with only 140,000 supporters?

Some teams have made the move to play interstate games, but going to play footy in states(Tas, ACT) that don't have a ground big enough for a VFL game, let alone an AFL game doesn't really help the clubs.

The AFL needs to schedule blockbuster games for the struggling teams, not only for the bigger victorian clubs. As well as ditch that 95% salary rule. It can really screw teams over, especially if they have a sh!tty team that doesn't deserve to be paid that much, but the financially struggling team still has to pay it.

 

[GOALden Hawk]

Originally posted by daddy_4_eyes
The problem isn't the equalisation policy, its the 10 teams in victoria problem.

In a city with 3.5million citizens, of which for example 50% follow footy, and of that 50% only 80% follow a victorian team. That leaves 1.4million people to divide between 10 teams. 140,000 people per team. How can a club make the several million dollars it needs to run the club with only 140,000 supporters?

Some teams have made the move to play interstate games, but going to play footy in states(Tas, ACT) that don't have a ground big enough for a VFL game, let alone an AFL game doesn't really help the clubs.

The AFL needs to schedule blockbuster games for the struggling teams, not only for the bigger victorian clubs. As well as ditch that 95% salary rule. It can really screw teams over, especially if they have a sh!tty team that doesn't deserve to be paid that much, but the financially struggling team still has to pay it.

I don't know about only 80% following Victorian teams, I'd say it's more like 85-90%. But I think the AFL has to accept 10 teams in Victoria is a MUST. They can pretend all they like that the problem will go away, but how? A club relocate? where to? merger? not after the Melbourne Hawks fiasco. Fold? Never going to happen.

But I agree with you on the 95% rule, absolutely ridiculous one. Brought in with the sole purpose of killing Fitzroy, may kill half a dozen clubs instead. But the salary cap needs to stop growing by as much as 10% as well.

The whole idea of the salary cap was to prevent a team been able to pay for all its players if it had a super list, so one or two had to leave and the competition remained even. Instead, teams like Essendon are justing signing players to 3 or 4 year deals and loading the money into the final years, safe in the knowledge the salary cap will increase enough to accomodate it.

Also agree with you on the blockbuster. I don't care about all that crap about Collingwood and Essendon setting up Anzac Day whatever, the fact remains that the AFL still give the so-called big 4 the right to play each other twice at the MCG every year while the others don't. That's why the whole equalisation of the gate takings at the moment is a joke.

 

[topdon]

There is no doubt that total gate takings should be distributed evenly between the clubs. The clubs can then do what they like with the funds. If they still suffer a loss, even with the extra cash, that can be put down to bad management than anything else.

I am an Essendon supporter, but i'm sorry, the idea of the "big 4" playing each other twice AND taking their own match recipts is just plain WRONG.

You keep this current model and the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. In a football economy where the AFL is getting richer (albeit their costs have increased) along with Essendon, Calton, Collingwood and Richmond...teh clubs at the lower ebb of the scale needs to survive.

I'm sorry...but i see no competition when we play Carlton, Collingwood and Richmond 2-3 times a year. The new TV right deal was signed under the proviso that the 16 clubs remained. Something is going dreadfully wrong here. It oozes bad management, which so far, the AFL seem immune.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by daddy_4_eyes
The problem isn't the equalisation policy, its the 10 teams in victoria problem.

With 500 Mill in tv rights money to allocate, where's the problem?

In a city with 3.5million citizens, of which for example 50% follow footy, and of that 50% only 80% follow a victorian team. That leaves 1.4million people to divide between 10 teams. 140,000 people per team. How can a club make the several million dollars it needs to run the club with only 140,000 supporters?

It couldn't. Luckily for us more than 50% of people in Melbourne follow football and more than 80% of them would follow a victorian team.

The AFL needs to schedule blockbuster games for the struggling teams, not only for the bigger victorian clubs.

Oxymoron. Games between sruggling teams don't attract the crowds and hence aren't blockbusters. If you're talking about evening out the draw that's a different matter. Persoanlly I'm with Adrian, divide the gate taking equally between the clubs but keep the current draw. That hopefully means the AFL will get as many people to the footy as possible and thus generate more money to be distributed to all the clubs.

As well as ditch that 95% salary rule.

Agreed, all it does is reward mediocrity.

 

[choppy]

Originally posted by topdon
There is no doubt that total gate takings should be distributed evenly between the clubs. The clubs can then do what they like with the funds. If they still suffer a loss, even with the extra cash, that can be put down to bad management than anything else.

I am an Essendon supporter, but i'm sorry, the idea of the "big 4" playing each other twice AND taking their own match recipts is just plain WRONG.

An excellent post TD, the difference between a profit and loss these days (apart from bad management from which it appears StKilda this year is) is the receipts from games. Essendon, Carlton, Collingwood and Richmond get a return game against each other whilst other Victorian clubs get a return game against Brsibane, Port, Freo or West Coast which requires a $20K crowd to break even.

The hypocrisy of the Presidents from these clubs demanding that clubs be given no concessions when they are recipients themselves really pi sses me off.

As for Casey, did not his club go to the AFL demanding $400K compensation from AFL re Coloniel last year which in the end was the difference b/w them posting a small profit and not loss.

I am still not convinced of the intentions of McMahon.

I would also like to know what the hell is or has happened to the 500 million from the TV rights deal.

 

[Frodo]

Originally posted by GOALden Hawk


But I think the AFL has to accept 10 teams in Victoria is a MUST. They can pretend all they like that the problem will go away, but how? A club relocate? where to? merger? not after the Melbourne Hawks fiasco. Fold? Never going to happen.

10 teams yes, but 7 in the AFL and 3 back to the VFL. 9 teams in Melbourne is an ablolute commercial joke.

 

[daddy_4_eyes]

Originally posted by Dave
With 500 Mill in tv rights money to allocate, where's the problem?

It couldn't. Luckily for us more than 50% of people in Melbourne follow football and more than 80% of them would follow a victorian team.

Oxymoron. Games between sruggling teams don't attract the crowds and hence aren't blockbusters. If you're talking about evening out the draw that's a different matter. Persoanlly I'm with Adrian, divide the gate taking equally between the clubs but keep the current draw. That hopefully means the AFL will get as many people to the footy as possible and thus generate more money to be distributed to all the clubs.

First of all, those figures i gave on team support were estimates. I said only 50% support a team because i did not include "silent" supporters, those who never buy a membership and the only merchandise they own is the stuff their grandma knitted for them. Also, in the Western Suburbs soccer is far more popular than Footy, and i doubt 50% of citizens here have memberships, and of those who do most only have one membership for the whole family and get in that way.

Secondly, When i said "blockbuster games for the struggling teams" i meant a struggling team playing in a crowd-drawing game, not a game between two struggling teams.

Thirdly, even though the AFL is going to get $500million from the broadcast rights, it must be considered that thats over a 5yr period, that comes to $3.125million a year for each team. Not even enough to cover players salaries. And a fair amount of that money the AFL is planning on spending itself.

Teams cannot get themselves into a false sense of security with these broadcast rights $$ coming in, it does not mean survival, only a lifeline.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by daddy_4_eyes
Secondly, When i said "blockbuster games for the struggling teams" i meant a struggling team playing in a crowd-drawing game, not a game between two struggling teams.

That's fine, but say what you mean

Thirdly, even though the AFL is going to get $500million from the broadcast rights, it must be considered that thats over a 5yr period, that comes to $3.125million a year for each team.

100 mil a year by 16 teams is 6.25 by my calculations. When clubs are making a 400K loss even 1/6th of that could mean the difference between survival and going bust.

Teams cannot get themselves into a false sense of security with these broadcast rights $$ coming in, it does not mean survival, only a lifeline.

And neither should the AFL be decrying their financial positions when the competition as a whole can command 500Mill in boradcats rights. Just remember, if 3 or 4 teams go under the tv deal is off as it requires a 16 team comp.

Frodo, 9 teams in Melbourne is a commercial reality. Send three of them packing and you lose those supporters forever. Think that's in the best interests of the competition as a whole? Of the sport in genereal?

 

[daddy_4_eyes]

Originally posted by Dave
100 mil a year by 16 teams is 6.25 by my calculations. When clubs are making a 400K loss even 1/6th of that could mean the difference between survival and going bust.

My mistake. But you get the point i was trying to portray. With rising costs and player payments, that $6.25mln divided by 16 clubs and the AFL is not much. And we must also remember that the current TV rights also already add to clubs revenue, so the $500mln is not what it seems.

 

[Smokin]

If the AFL wants a real equalisation policy then every gate reciept needs to be shared by all clubs. The AFL can then get their money and support by scheduling the blockbusters and all teams are happy.

I dont think corporate Melbourne can support 10 clubs. Some interstate clubs are very well off not because of members, but being able to do better corporate deals. I remember Port enticed Wanganeed by getting McDonalds to give him a restuarant or something like that. Clubs need to find big money deals to keep them afloat, just as much as members. There is only x amount of dollars to go around, and costs are rising! Doesnt the fact that North are looking elsewhere prove that they believe the city cant sustain them?

People who believe that a club can survive because when the going gets tough,they can rattle tins as has been done in the past are kidding themselves. 10 years ago $million was a lot of money, today its not. That figure is under 33% of the salary cap ALONE. Forget other costs.

Also, when you rattle tins people pay once, twice or maybe 3 times. However, as they say, if you keep going back to the well eventually its going to be dry! People wont put their hands in their pockets too many times, unless they are very well off.

The AFL has an obligation to help all clubs and shouldnt discriminate. However, a line must be drawn as to how far they can help all clubs, because the AFL cant risk collapse either.

They reckon the NRL isnt far away from collapse up there, and they have a pretty big backer in Newscorp behind them. The AFL isnt immune to going broke either, they arnt there soley to make money, however if they dont, they wont be there for too long.

All clubs and the AFL needs to get together and work out a real equalisation policy in which ALL clubs are happy and recieving help. There needs to be an agreement as to how far the AFL will support a team, and all clubs must sign. After the given help from the AFL, its up to the club to do whatever it sees fit with the money, and can work on its own ways to generate other money.
Whatever happens to a club then, after the AFL help, is soley up to them!

 

[Pessimistic]

Earlier in the year Ian ****er used the NFL as an example. Their central administration provides the major part of the players wages from funds it controls. Thse clubs use their incom streams for coaches etc etc (not to mention improved facilities for members !- why is all the money spent on things for the players)

If the AFL is negotiating an increase in player salaries (the cap) then surely it should at least provide that money to the clubs

 

[sbagman]

A naive question

The fact that the chase for the sponsorship dollar is much more difficult in Melbourne than in, say, Adelaide, Perth or Brisbane.

My question is this, and it may seem silly - why wouldn't a company from say Adelaide, sponsor a team from Melbourne? Or vice versa? The game is national now, and so is the exposure... I don't understand why the Melbourne clubs are supposedly competing with a finite number of sponsors dollars. Wouldn't all 16 clubs be competing for a finite number of Australian sponsorship dollars?

Sbagman.

 

[daddy_4_eyes]

Sponsors want to sponsor the teams with the biggest supporter base. So clubs like Nth and the bulldogs will struggle to get big sponsorship deals. A team with the same supporter base in a one-team state wouldn't have to compete with other clubs for that sponsor, thats why victorian teams are struggling to attract sponsors.

Also, an Adelaide company would not sponsor a vic team because their company is in adelaide and exposure in Melbourne wouldn't really help their cause. Unless they plan on doing business in victoria.