Season 2020 & the money if cancelled

[Kwality]

“Kwality”,

the figures concerning Fremantle’s wealth are from ‘An extended coronavirus shutdown may change sport as we know it in Australia’. The claims about the WAFL being under threat are less clear I will confess and come from a report its reserves competition was on the verge of being shut down.

The format of the post suggested it was a quote & I was curious to see its context. Hope my post was not seen as contesting the content, it certainly was not meant that way.

 

[RedV3x]

I think the next two weeks will tell the tale as to weather we come out of it quickly or it goes on for a long time.

There is no quick result. Either way - it's a long wait.
There is a ray of hope.
The creation of 15 minute test kits being readily available means that the AFL could resume in isolation.
in that all players and staff could be tested before entering a stadium before a game.

 

[mianfei]

As to why the AFL and NRL are so eager to play by any means possible, I read this article in the Sydney Morning Herald a couple of days ago, arguing that NRL clubs are run more like charities than businesses.

What it amounts to is that AFL and NRL clubs are at least de jure win-maximisers (“running as a charity”) although typically subject to budgetary constraints, whereas clubs in more land-scarce nations with less room for large seating capacities are generally profit-maximisers (“running as a business”).

Being profit-maximisers means that clubs overseas are concerned to have a reserve for times when foreseen or unforeseen crises make play impossible. Even during the World Wars, the NRL (then NSWRFL) played almost exactly as normal and the AFL (then VFL) continued with relatively minor changes like some clubs in recess and no public holiday games. In contrast, almost all clubs in Europe were forced to stop play during the two World Wars, most especially in the United Kingdom explaining why the UK has such elaborate insurance policies for the cancellation of tournaments like Wimbledon and the British Open golf.

The future world of universal behind-closed-doors play is certain to put an end to de jure win-maximisation. Once clubs accept the fact that crowds are a thing of the past due to rigid space and distance requirements in playing arenas, they will have to turn to profit-maximisation.

Vis-à-vis win-maximisation, profit-maximisation would theoretically lower wages because clubs would never sacrifice profits for wins as AFL and NRL teams have done for over a century. However, increased specialisation of players inherent in an exclusively TV-based sport without crowds would more than likely counter wage cuts from profit maximisation. At the same time, profit-maximisation – especially in geographically restricted sports like football and rugby league – runs the risk of further season losses due to labour disputes, whose absence is a key advantage inherent in win-maximisation. Labour disputes would be a further test for a historically win-maximising league – despite extremely high salaries, the fact that players become less and less employable after retirement means they can and will demand more of the money in the sport than profit maximisation permits.

 

[RedV3x]

TV-based sport without crowds

It's a temporary thing.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

As to why the AFL and NRL are so eager to play by any means possible, I read this article in the Sydney Morning Herald a couple of days ago, arguing that NRL clubs are run more like charities than businesses.

What it amounts to is that AFL and NRL clubs are at least de jure win-maximisers (“running as a charity”) although typically subject to budgetary constraints, whereas clubs in more land-scarce nations with less room for large seating capacities are generally profit-maximisers (“running as a business”).

Being profit-maximisers means that clubs overseas are concerned to have a reserve for times when foreseen or unforeseen crises make play impossible. Even during the World Wars, the NRL (then NSWRFL) played almost exactly as normal and the AFL (then VFL) continued with relatively minor changes like some clubs in recess and no public holiday games. In contrast, almost all clubs in Europe were forced to stop play during the two World Wars, most especially in the United Kingdom explaining why the UK has such elaborate insurance policies for the cancellation of tournaments like Wimbledon and the British Open golf.

The future world of universal behind-closed-doors play is certain to put an end to de jure win-maximisation. Once clubs accept the fact that crowds are a thing of the past due to rigid space and distance requirements in playing arenas, they will have to turn to profit-maximisation.

Vis-à-vis win-maximisation, profit-maximisation would theoretically lower wages because clubs would never sacrifice profits for wins as AFL and NRL teams have done for over a century. However, increased specialisation of players inherent in an exclusively TV-based sport without crowds would more than likely counter wage cuts from profit maximisation. At the same time, profit-maximisation – especially in geographically restricted sports like football and rugby league – runs the risk of further season losses due to labour disputes, whose absence is a key advantage inherent in win-maximisation. Labour disputes would be a further test for a historically win-maximising league – despite extremely high salaries, the fact that players become less and less employable after retirement means they can and will demand more of the money in the sport than profit maximisation permits.

I posted a similar thing about this a few days ago. A big problem with making profits is it will just be eaten up by the loss of government grants. If say North Melbourne had $30mil in the bank then noway do the government throw in anywhere near the amount they would otherwise for an up grade of Arden st, they would be expected to fund the lot. If the NRL had $400mil in the bank then they would lose government funding for grassroots and probably get a lot less favourable stadium deals or be expected to put money towards them simply because they would be seen as being able to fund it themselves. Look how much you see people whinge every time the AFL gets money from the government over say a sport like soccer, this would be multiplied a hundred times if we start seeing clubs and the league having hundreds of millions in cash reserves.

 

[RedV3x]

I posted a similar thing about this a few days ago. A big problem with making profits is it will just be eaten up by the loss of government grants. If say North Melbourne had $30mil in the bank then noway do the government throw in anywhere near the amount they would otherwise for an up grade of Arden st, they would be expected to fund the lot. If the NRL had $400mil in the bank then they would lose government funding for grassroots and probably get a lot less favourable stadium deals or be expected to put money towards them simply because they would be seen as being able to fund it themselves. Look how much you see people whinge every time the AFL gets money from the government over say a sport like soccer, this would be multiplied a hundred times if we start seeing clubs and the league having hundreds of millions in cash reserves.

You have the situation in the U.K. where the multi-millionaire players are saying that if salaries are cut then there
will be a significant reduction in government revenue through loss of income tax.

 

[mianfei]

If say North Melbourne had $30mil in the bank then noway do the government throw in anywhere near the amount they would otherwise for an up grade of Arden st, they would be expected to fund the lot. If the NRL had $400mil in the bank then they would lose government funding for grassroots and probably get a lot less favourable stadium deals or be expected to put money towards them simply because they would be seen as being able to fund it themselves.

If you look at profit-maximising North American team sports, that becomes impossible to believe.

In those cases, teams with money in the bank have gained huge government assistance, or even complete government funding, to build new stadiums with huge numbers of luxury suites, as shown in Neil deMause’ book Field of Schemes: How the Great Stadium Swindle Turns Public Money into Private Profit.

 

[RedV3x]

Well you talk about it and voila it appears.
Interesting solution to one much talked about club.

American dream: White House advisor considers taking over GWS

American dream: White House advisor considers taking over GWS

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Most AFL club members will leave their membership funds or part of funds paid by instalments so far, with their clubs IMO. There will be some people who require refunds.

I wonder if the club will split the membership between a club membership component ie no game access say $100, and a season ticket component and ask those requesting a refund if they will at least leave the club membership component with the club and can say they were still a member in 2020??

AFL Members is interesting. I expect just about every AFL Member to want a refund, subject to an issue discussed below. I would expect them to either ask for a cash refund or a 100% credit against their 2021 membership.

If they are a Gold member and get a refund do they lose their Gold status and go to the bottom of the pack in 2021? Does that stop Gold members asking for a refund?

How much is a Gold membership in 2020? $700+? I think I saw a Silver membership was $620 late last year.

From the last 2 AFL annual reports
2019
AFL Membership provided another strong year of growth in 2019, totalling 58,027 members and representing
year-on-year growth of 2.2 per cent.
2018
Separate to club membership, AFL membership also achieved strong results in 2018, with a total of 56,792 members. This represents an increase of 2.2 per cent on 2017. AFL membership is made up of 30,605 Gold members, 22,507 Silver members, 3118 Absentee members and 562 Bronze members.With 48,961 members nominating a club of support, AFL membership accounts for 4.85 per cent of total club member access.

Lets say the average is $500 per membership across all different categories.

That is about a $29m refund or missing income in 2021 if the refund is a 100% credit for 2021 membership.

What about the club support fee which the AFL has hidden since 2014 season and pays to the clubs??

In 2013 it was $138 per adult, ie the Adult 11 Club membership - season ticket amount the AFL would publish in its annual AFL Record Season Guide book. Concession and Junior fee was less. 2013 was the last year the AFL published these figures in their annual AFL Record Season Guide book as Eddie cracked the shits about not being able to sell the tickets on the wing of the Great Southern Stand and only gets $138 whereas the club could sell them for $600+.

Lets say its $160 per adult in 2020. Does the AFL request those monies back from the club if an AFL Member with club support asks for his/her money back? If a credit is issued for 2021 then those club will miss out on that income in 2021.

For a club like Collingwood with around 12,000 AFL members ( last time AFL published those numbers) that's close to $2m of income that wont be there in 2021.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

If you look at profit-maximising North American team sports, that becomes impossible to believe.

In those cases, teams with money in the bank have gained huge government assistance, or even complete government funding, to build new stadiums with huge numbers of luxury suites, as shown in Neil deMause’ book Field of Schemes: How the Great Stadium Swindle Turns Public Money into Private Profit.

I understand what you’re saying but that is a different country with a different culture. A better example is West Coast who if my memory serves me correct (which could be wrong) coughed up $20 odd mil for their training facilities.
I doubt Australians pre corona would ever accept handouts to organisations who are making multi million dollar profits.

 

[madmug]

I understand what you’re saying but that is a different country with a different culture. A better example is West Coast who if my memory serves me correct (which could be wrong) coughed up $20 odd mil for their training facilities.
I doubt Australians pre corona would ever accept handouts to organisations who are making multi million dollar profits.

Most Australians didn't accept this Governments sports rorts use of public money for party political gain, but what can they do?

Government spend on sports for both the political value & the economic value they perceive they & the community will get from professional sports & the facilities they build for them.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Most Australians didn't accept this Governments sports rorts use of public money for party political gain, but what can they do?

Government spend on sports for both the political value & the economic value they perceive they & the community will get from professional sports & the facilities they build for them.

That was completely different and done very much underhanded. When was the last time any AFL funding was done for a political gain?

edit I would believe it if Tassie had a side

 

[mianfei]

When was the last time any AFL funding was done for a political gain?

There may not have been any for direct local political gain, but it is certainly highly plausible (to me) that government funding of Docklands was partially or even largely dictated by the demands of the TV industry for more profit.

 

[RedV3x]

that government funding of Docklands was

due to it's location in drawing people to the city.
The W.A. government spent nearly $2billion on a new stadium making it very clear that it wasn't just for football
but to attract tourism to the city and state.
The W.A. government also commandeered a football ground to build a rectangular stadium.
The Victorian government has spent a lot of money on stadia across the board.
The development of Docklands was primarily due to it's location which is fortunately is the opposite to Perth
where the location of the new stadium does not aid the Perth CBD.

 

[Kwality]

I posted a similar thing about this a few days ago. A big problem with making profits is it will just be eaten up by the loss of government grants. If say North Melbourne had $30mil in the bank then noway do the government throw in anywhere near the amount they would otherwise for an up grade of Arden st, they would be expected to fund the lot. If the NRL had $400mil in the bank then they would lose government funding for grassroots and probably get a lot less favourable stadium deals or be expected to put money towards them simply because they would be seen as being able to fund it themselves. Look how much you see people whinge every time the AFL gets money from the government over say a sport like soccer, this would be multiplied a hundred times if we start seeing clubs and the league having hundreds of millions in cash reserves.

Should the AFL be restructed to leave the elite comp as a separate entity from the rules/development of the game.
Not an easy task because competition is the buzz that defines the game.

 

[Kwality]

due to it's location in drawing people to the city.
The W.A. government spent nearly $2billion on a new stadium making it very clear that it wasn't just for football
but to attract tourism to the city and state.
The W.A. government also commandeered a football ground to build a rectangular stadium.
The Victorian government has spent a lot of money on stadia across the board.
The development of Docklands was primarily due to it's location which is fortunately is the opposite to Perth
where the location of the new stadium does not aid the Perth CBD.

The way the GF deal was done by the Vic govt might qualify :

for direct local political gain

It was political manipulation if not direct political gain, the winner will be the Vic economy & I can see it being used come election time.

 

[RedV3x]

It was political manipulation if not direct political gain, the winner will be the Vic economy & I can see it being used come election time.

"everyone's a winner babe"

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Should the AFL be restructed to leave the elite comp as a separate entity from the rules/development of the game.
Not an easy task because competition is the buzz that defines the game.

Personally I think it should but until Tassie has a side and GC and GWS can stand on their own two feet we are probably best off under the current system.

 

[Kwality]

Personally I think it should but until Tassie has a side and GC and GWS can stand on their own two feet we are probably best off under the current system.

We are not good at tough decisions, bit like little aths, no losers.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

We are not good at tough decisions, bit like little aths, no losers.

i don’t think it is a out tough decisions I think it’s about what is more important, the sport or the competition. For me it’s the sport but hopefully in another 20 odd years we can run a much better and more even competition and the sport has grown to a point where it can look after itself without the AFL manufacturing crap. As long as we have the AFL running the sport then the sport should always be the priority.

 

[Kwality]

i don’t think it is a out tough decisions

In this instance we dont have a choice, decisions to be made to reduce expenditure /where to cut?
Only gross mismanagement can mean its one or the other.

Yes, I did grab your opening words only ... I agree with the gist of your comments.

 

[RedV3x]

For me it’s the sport but hopefully in another 20 odd years we can run a much better and more even competition.

We have an uneven competition for historical reasons but the mix is changing.
The interstate clubs get stronger all the time.
The AFL instigated the draft and the salary cap to construct a more even competition.
If the AFL had instigated a football department cap then most probably we'd be in a much better position all round.
What has changed the AFL is the intensity fuelled mainly by the growth in football departments.
The best setup for football and AFL in the longterm is strong second tier, amateur, country, women, and junior competitions.
Money for football departments should have always been funnelled into grassroots.

 

[Kwality]

The idea that now is not the time to shape the competition for the future mystifies me.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

The idea that now is not the time to shape the competition for the future mystifies me.

They probably are it’s most likely just not as drastic as some thought it would/should be though.

 

[jatz14]

If you look at profit-maximising North American team sports, that becomes impossible to believe.

In those cases, teams with money in the bank have gained huge government assistance, or even complete government funding, to build new stadiums with huge numbers of luxury suites, as shown in Neil deMause’ book Field of Schemes: How the Great Stadium Swindle Turns Public Money into Private Profit.

Thats because its big business, and competitive. American state governments give huge incentives to businesses to base themselves in those states, including sports teams. Can you imagine a situation where it was realistic for the AFL to move footy out of Melbourne? American sports have no immovable franchises.