Roast Spending cap

[rfctiger90]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...ent-spending-cap/story-fni5f22o-1226837623961

So the AFL have decided to bring in a spending cap, just as we work our way out of debt and become a powerhouse.

**** this shits me.

We worked extremely hard and put in a lot of effort to establish ourselves back as one of the Big 4, and to be able to spend big on Free Agents and our Football Department. And now, just as we get get to this position, the AFL decide they've had enough and want to close the gap between the top clubs and the lower clubs.

Where was this cap when we were ****ing shithouse for 30 years and couldn't even afford proper training facilities?? Why weren't clubs giving us money to fund our Salary Cap and Football Department. But now, we start bringing in revenues and the AFL decides that we must share our revenue and give it to the poorer clubs who can't afford (through no fault of ours) to pay the maximum cap. These clubs have got themselves into trouble (read: Melbourne) by poor off-field decisions and poor on field product. Yet when we were in their position, who gave a **** about us? Not the AFL, that's for sure.

But hey, lets make the competition as even as possible so all 18 teams are the exact same and none of them are different. This is clearly done to enhance support for the game, as if every team is competitive then each team will have more supporters.

The other issue is expansion. The AFL brought in TWO new teams, when it couldn't even support the old 16 teams. So hey instead of helping fix the clubs who are struggling, lets bring in two new clubs and give them millions of dollars and the best draft picks. What a good idea! **** our old clubs. The future is in Western Sydney(!!!!!!!) and the Gold Coast.

Please leave ASAP Demetriou. Please.

 

[Mogwai]

It gives me the shits when there were 15 other better clubs but we still deserved to win the Premiership because we are Richmond

 

[bananatigz]

It hasn't been capped at a crazy amount thankfully, the article says it will probably be around 21mil, Collingwood only spent 22m, so you would think we would be under that. I would say its not so much to close the gap, rather stop it from getting any bigger, the smaller clubs can only afford to spend 16m or so

 

[Groupie_]

**** off

 

[rfctiger90]

It hasn't been capped at a crazy amount thankfully, the article says it will probably be around 21mil, Collingwood only spent 22m, so you would think we would be under that. I would say its not so much to close the gap, rather stop it from getting any bigger, the smaller clubs can only afford to spend 16m or so

Yeah for the next year or two it isn't a huge issue. But after that, right after we've won our first flag we'll hit the spending roof and be struck back into the middle of the pack. Probably fighting it out with North Melbourne (who half our money probably went to)

 

[johnno77]

Spending in football is getting ridiculous. It had to be reined in sooner or later.

Probably not ideal timing for us but far from the end of the world.

Every one deserves a fighting chance.

The sooner this happens the better.

 

[Calcium Man]

Its not really the cap that annoys me. But i think to make it less of a bland thing across every club lets give the clubs leeway within in that cap and say 55% has to be spent on players and 20% on the actual football department and leave the clubs to decide how to spend that extra 25%. If they want to go hard for players, pay for FA's and put player development on the back burners vs another club that wants to develop its own stars and spend more on its actual department.

I do have a big problem with taxing clubs revenue. That is the money that club has earnt and shouldn't be given out to North, WB and the saints because they have not been able to increase revenue. If Collingwood earns enough revenue to go over the cap and spend the tax then good luck to them but everybody else benefits from the extra revenue then.

 

[rfctiger90]

Spending in football is getting ridiculous. It had to be reined in sooner or later.

Probably not ideal timing for us but far from the end of the world.

Every one deserves a fighting chance.

The sooner this happens the better.

They all have a fighting chance. Are you saying that we're in a better demographic than North Melbourne? Do we not appeal to the same markets?

It's down to how the club is run off the field, and right now, a lot of these clubs are poorly run and the AFL are simply saying that it's ok to run your club poorly because other clubs who are run well will give you the money they've earned.

 

[bananatigz]

They all have a fighting chance. Are you saying that we're in a better demographic than North Melbourne? Do we not appeal to the same markets?

It's down to how the club is run off the field, and right now, a lot of these clubs are poorly run and the AFL are simply saying that it's ok to run your club poorly because other clubs who are run well will give you the money they've earned.

I completely agree. Look where we where even 5 years ago. Think about how much hard and awesome work has gone in and how much time and money we have spent to drag ourselves back up to the top. If North and the Doggies want to match it with the likes of Collingwood and co. they should do the hard yards and do it off their own bat, and I will applaud them for it.

 

[johnno77]

They all have a fighting chance. Are you saying that we're in a better demographic than North Melbourne? Do we not appeal to the same markets?

It's down to how the club is run off the field, and right now, a lot of these clubs are poorly run and the AFL are simply saying that it's ok to run your club poorly because other clubs who are run well will give you the money they've earned.

I understand where you're coming from but surely you don't think it's a good idea that spending continues to grow unrestricted? From reading the article, the cap will still be much higher than teams such as the Bulldogs, Kangaroos etc can currently afford anyway. I have great admiration and pride at how we've pulled ourselves out of debt and are a strong club off the field but let's not forget we have been given our fair share of handouts in recent years. Just because we didn't in the really bad old days doesn't mean we have never had any help. I also honestly don't know how we've managed to hang onto as many fans as we have. We were treated like garbage for a long period of time. From my experience, It's only been the last 5 or so years that the club has realised how important our supporters are. Until then I feel we were largely taken for granted.

I don't mind the EPL but I hate the fact that the team that I follow (Aston Villa) and most other teams have virtually zero chance of ever winning the title unless they find a sugar daddy richer than all the other sugar daddy's. Even then, they would still need an awesome administration, recruiting and coaching setup.

I love the Tigers but as a football lover also, I think this is a positive move. Money is only one aspect in a successful club anyway. Plenty of clubs have proven that by their success or failure over the years.

 

[Stevi_Tigers]

Guys if there's a loophole to be found clubs will find it. But our attraction to recycled players are that they get given a go and 90% improve not to mention getting to play at the g in front of the tiger army

 

[bananatigz]

I understand where you're coming from but surely you don't think it's a good idea that spending continues to grow unrestricted? From reading the article, the cap will still be much higher than teams such as the Bulldogs, Kangaroos etc can currently afford anyway. I have great admiration and pride at how we've pulled ourselves out of debt and are a strong club off the field but let's not forget we have been given our fair share of handouts in recent years. Just because we didn't in the really bad old days doesn't mean we have never had any help. I also honestly don't know how we've managed to hang onto as many fans as we have. We were treated like garbage for a long period of time. From my experience, It's only been the last 5 or so years that the club has realised how important our supporters are. Until then I feel we were largely taken for granted.

I don't mind the EPL but I hate the fact that the team that I follow (Aston Villa) and most other teams have virtually zero chance of ever winning the title unless they find a sugar daddy richer than all the other sugar daddy's. Even then, they would still need an awesome administration, recruiting and coaching setup.

I love the Tigers but as a football lover also, I think this is a positive move. Money is only one aspect in a successful club anyway. Plenty of clubs have proven that by their success or failure over the years.

I don't think the EPL comparison is accurate. The fact that Aston Villa will never compete with Man U is the exact reason we have a salary cap, Collingwood can't just go out and offer anyone they want 500k more than anyone else can afford, thats the system that the EPL operates under. AFL sides are also not privately owned, so there is no need for Sugar Daddy's at all. Every club has an equal chance of creating revenue, that's where having the correct administration in place becomes so important and why we should be rewarded for the way we have built up our club with the right people and pulled ourselves up, all the other clubs have the potential to do that if they put in the hard yards and make the right decisions.

 

[johnno77]

I don't think the EPL comparison is accurate.

Don't misquote me. I never compared AFL to EPL. I just used it as an example of what I believe is an unjust system.

We shouldn't be getting on our high horses just because we've had a few good years in a row off the field. There's plenty of work to still be done and making and spending money is only one part of it.

I can see the other side of the coin and understand where other people are coming from but I'm trying to look at this from a neutral perspective and I think this is a very positive move if it's done properly. I wonder what some peoples views on this would have been only 3 or 4 years ago when we were still in the shit?

 

[RFCanalysist]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...ent-spending-cap/story-fni5f22o-1226837623961

So the AFL have decided to bring in a spending cap, just as we work our way out of debt and become a powerhouse.

**** this shits me.

We worked extremely hard and put in a lot of effort to establish ourselves back as one of the Big 4, and to be able to spend big on Free Agents and our Football Department. And now, just as we get get to this position, the AFL decide they've had enough and want to close the gap between the top clubs and the lower clubs.

Where was this cap when we were ******* shithouse for 30 years and couldn't even afford proper training facilities?? Why weren't clubs giving us money to fund our Salary Cap and Football Department. But now, we start bringing in revenues and the AFL decides that we must share our revenue and give it to the poorer clubs who can't afford (through no fault of ours) to pay the maximum cap. These clubs have got themselves into trouble (read: Melbourne) by poor off-field decisions and poor on field product. Yet when we were in their position, who gave a **** about us? Not the AFL, that's for sure.

But hey, lets make the competition as even as possible so all 18 teams are the exact same and none of them are different. This is clearly done to enhance support for the game, as if every team is competitive then each team will have more supporters.

The other issue is expansion. The AFL brought in TWO new teams, when it couldn't even support the old 16 teams. So hey instead of helping fix the clubs who are struggling, lets bring in two new clubs and give them millions of dollars and the best draft picks. What a good idea! **** our old clubs. The future is in Western Sydney(!!!!!!!) and the Gold Coast.

Please leave ASAP Demetriou. Please.

Far out that is really annoying. It's like there is a conspiracy against us. To be fair though, the afl did offer us money a couple of times when we were struggling, but we declined as we are better than that, and it has shown. We didn't need hand outs to become a power house again, but clubs like Melbourne need it, just to remain in the afl.

 

[bananatigz]

Don't misquote me. I never compared AFL to EPL. I just used it as an example of what I believe is an unjust system.

We shouldn't be getting on our high horses just because we've had a few good years in a row off the field. There's plenty of work to still be done and making and spending money is only one part of it.

I can see the other side of the coin and understand where other people are coming from but I'm trying to look at this from a neutral perspective and I think this is a very positive move if it's done properly. I wonder what some peoples views on this would have been only 3 or 4 years ago when we were still in the shit?

Apologies if I did, I was just saying such a system would never eventuate in the AFL if spending wasn't capped.

I totally agree, there is a lot of hard work still to be done, and I'm confident the people we have in place will continue to do so. I'm equally as confident that there will be clubs who won't do so, and they have no one to blame for that but themselves, they aren't disadvantaged by anything other than the fact they haven't managed the club as well as they could have. I understand completely the need to prop these clubs are, and I am perfectly fine with them getting hand outs from the AFL, and also I agree that if everyone was on a more equal footing it would be a good thing for the comp, but I wholeheartedly believe they should be made to earn it. This isn't me on my high horse, if this had come about 5 years ago I would have preferred we had done it ourselves, I'm sure there are people from the Saints and Doggies who feel the same way at the moment. Not saying I wouldn't take it, that would be illogical, but surely there is much more to be gained getting to the top off your own steam, for the psychology of your club, and I would genuinely be pleased to see all the clubs towards the bottom of this scale to take charge and turn themselves into successful off-field teams(except maybe norf), and there is nothing stopping them from doing so!

 

[johnno77]

Apologies if I did, I was just saying such a system would never eventuate in the AFL if spending wasn't capped.

I totally agree, there is a lot of hard work still to be done, and I'm confident the people we have in place will continue to do so. I'm equally as confident that there will be clubs who won't do so, and they have no one to blame for that but themselves, they aren't disadvantaged by anything other than the fact they haven't managed the club as well as they could have. I understand completely the need to prop these clubs are, and I am perfectly fine with them getting hand outs from the AFL, and also I agree that if everyone was on a more equal footing it would be a good thing for the comp, but I wholeheartedly believe they should be made to earn it. This isn't me on my high horse, if this had come about 5 years ago I would have preferred we had done it ourselves, I'm sure there are people from the Saints and Doggies who feel the same way at the moment. Not saying I wouldn't take it, that would be illogical, but surely there is much more to be gained getting to the top off your own steam, for the psychology of your club, and I would genuinely be pleased to see all the clubs towards the bottom of this scale to take charge and turn themselves into successful off-field teams(except maybe norf), and there is nothing stopping them from doing so!

Wasn't accusing you specifically of getting on your high horse but I think some tigers supporters (myself included at times) tend to forget how much pain comes with years and years of hopelessness. A bit of empathy goes a long way.

At the end of the day, I think a cap will be good to stop lots of needless frivolous spending and make no mistake there is lots of that going on at some of the richer clubs (and some poorer clubs). Either way, I think the Tigers are in a great position and are well aware of how far back we've come from and how much is still to be done.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

this aint bad for us

Firstly, its not a cap, its a tax. You still can spend, but you give the AFL 50c for every dollar you overspend

Secondly, we are below the proposed level, even after significant recent growth (and with our revenue still on the rise)

We are spending $19m, so still scope to grow without the tax hitting us

Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Geelong, Hawthorn, Sydney, and West Coast will all be paying up (depending upon final level)

Some of these clubs can pay the tax, others will have to reduce footy dept spend IMO as they dont have the same revenue streams right now

 

[Calcium Man]

Like i said i have no problems with the Tax to reduce outrageous spending but last night in bed i was think how much this drives me insane.

Lets be honest this is for 4 clubs in melbourne and 4 clubs up north. In the last 20 years 3 of the those Clubs (Saints, Bulldogs and North) have unprecedented success relative to their histories. Yet here we are with them now on the bottom of the ladder and whinging about equalisation when they already get more money from the AFL then other clubs. There will always be small clubs and bigs clubs its the way of the world but the cap and draft equals it out as much as it can with out just handing the cup out on an 18 year rotating bases and capping memberships at 40k and anyone above that is forced to be a member of another club.

First the bulldogs can afford overseas trips and a new VFL team but apparently they cannot afford to be on equal footing with every other team. That puts them almost at equal footing. This club also has the most territory for expansion as the entire Western suburbs are there for the taking, one of the fastest growing areas of Melbourne. This is after they've been in about 6 or 7 prelims since 1997. They have failed to build the club and its nobodies fault but their own.

Saint Kilda 4 grand finals since 1997, spent as much on the football department as anyone only 4 years ago but because of a crap administration and poor appointments as coach they now find themselves languishing at the bottom of the ladder. They refused to play youth or even invest in it during their formidable years instead went all out for premiership and missed by the bounce of a ball but never really marketed themselves to build a fan base instead relied on success to make them a big team. Now its all come out from under them and they have their hands out to the AFL.

North went through the 90's as the best team 2 premierships another grand final and a bunch of Prelims not to mention the best CHF to play the game. In era of true expansion as a successful club they never set themselves up as a powerful club unlike the Bombers who to this day are still cashed up thanks to their 80's and 90's football an don't look like losing it soon despite last year. Once again its club that failed to capitalise on its success and now whinges and moans about fixtures ect.. but the reality is if they were club winning football they would have the prime spots. Plus they get extra funding to make up for the short fall.

Melbourne a club that made a grand final in 2000 and a few finals in the early 2000's, debt free just 4 years ago are nobodies fault but their own so the less said about that tip of a club the better. They got their funding to help them survive now time for them improve on their own.

And you could go on. You put these examples against Port, Hawks, Geelong, Us and Collingwood who have all taken our medicine at some point over the last 15 years and said we need to fix our internal problems, market our club and strive to be the best and are now on the way up. Yes and ourselves and Collingwood have a big latent supporter base to call on but they still only come out of the woodwork when they see success and a club turning itself around. Hawks went to Tassie (got a free kick with waverley) and took its medicine in the mid 00's to build a supporter base and a team players wanted to be at (Clarko took a pay cut for an extra assistant). Geelong have Kardinia (which they have offered to Dogs so they can make money for about 8 years but Dogs think they are too good for that) but the club rebuilt itself from the top down to be the best at everything. And port cleared out its useless staff in admin on the board, got two great people in Hinkley and Burgess and have turned it around in a year. Those last 3 do not have bigger supporter bases then the clubs listed above but have instead hired the right people in the right places.

A tax on revenue basically will kill creativity and will of teams to create a revenue and will also give teams like Dogs, Saints ect.. an excuse not to really increase their revenue base as they'll be getting the cash off other clubs from now on. Not to mention the stupid blockbuster tax which really only hurts the fans.

 

[Nebular]

Excellent post Calcium Man

Double like.

 

[rfctiger90]

Another big issue is the Etihad stadium deal. The AFL need to buy that ASAP to stop clubs losing money when they play a home game there! That is ridiculous that a club cannot make a profit on a home game at their home stadium. Perhaps the AFL should look into fixing this deal rather than taxing the successful teams.

 

[johnno77]

Geelong have Kardinia (which they have offered to Dogs so they can make money for about 8 years but Dogs think they are too good for that)

Pretty sure that the AFL vetoed that rather than the Dogs due to the AFL's games per year commitment to Etihad stadium. From my memory, the Bulldogs were really keen to explore this option.

There are 2 distinct issues here, a cap on football dept spending and a tax on earnings. I don't really agree with the tax on earnings but I think a cap on spending is a great, responsible idea. Let's not forget that it was an arms race with Collingwood in the early 80's that started our 30 year spiral into being the laughing stock of the VFL/AFL.

 

[johnno77]

Another big issue is the Etihad stadium deal. The AFL need to buy that ASAP to stop clubs losing money when they play a home game there! That is ridiculous that a club cannot make a profit on a home game at their home stadium. Perhaps the AFL should look into fixing this deal rather than taxing the successful teams.

This is one of the massive issues that many other Melbourne clubs face that we don't. It's the main reason the Bulldogs were prepared to play home games in Geelong in front of less people an hour away from their heartland rather than 5 mins away. The AFL really stuffed up those stadium negotiations

 

[Calcium Man]

Pretty sure that the AFL vetoed that rather than the Dogs due to the AFL's games per year commitment to Etihad stadium. From my memory, the Bulldogs were really keen to explore this option.

There are 2 distinct issues here, a cap on football dept spending and a tax on earnings. I don't really agree with the tax on earnings but I think a cap on spending is a great, responsible idea. Let's not forget that it was an arms race with Collingwood in the early 80's that started our 30 year spiral into being the laughing stock of the VFL/AFL.

Yes and No. The AFL has vetoed it in the end but the bulldogs never really wanted it either. They only began exploring the option with any purpose last year. Before that when they were successful they told the cats no on several occasions. If they really wanted to play their they could. Two games a year with a 20k crowd would net them 750k per game and the AFL could move a Geelong home game to Etihad, maybe play cats v bullies at Kardina as a bulldogs home game so Cats still play a certain number of games down there and make us or melbourne or Carlton on a rotating bases play 1 game at Docklands. The reality is the bulldogs never really wanted it so never pressured the AFL, who admittedly didnt want it either.

I do agree with the cap on a Football Department and every club seems to agree also but disagree with the premise of a tax on club based revenue.

Another big issue is the Etihad stadium deal. The AFL need to buy that ASAP to stop clubs losing money when they play a home game there! That is ridiculous that a club cannot make a profit on a home game at their home stadium. Perhaps the AFL should look into fixing this deal rather than taxing the successful teams.

Yeah they really do need to fix this up. Not really sure what the Essendon and Carlton deals are or Melbourne Victory but these clubs make a small fortune out of Docklands and in particular Victory who get smaller crowds to games (I know the AFL is desperate to see this deal but Victory and Docklands management will not show it). Reality is though against both sell more memberships then the break even point of 28k (north are already ahead this in 2014) so its as much about their fans not showing up enough too. If you're getting 20-25k supporters there you should get over the break even point at games against most non-victorian teams if you're engaging your supporter base properly and against vic sides you should be getting crowds of min 40k. Now i'm not sure what you would make off that but if its not much then the AFL need to fix that before taxing other clubs.

 

[theflea]

Its not really the cap that annoys me. But i think to make it less of a bland thing across every club lets give the clubs leeway within in that cap and say 55% has to be spent on players and 20% on the actual football department and leave the clubs to decide how to spend that extra 25%. If they want to go hard for players, pay for FA's and put player development on the back burners vs another club that wants to develop its own stars and spend more on its actual department.

I do have a big problem with taxing clubs revenue. That is the money that club has earnt and shouldn't be given out to North, WB and the saints because they have not been able to increase revenue. If Collingwood earns enough revenue to go over the cap and spend the tax then good luck to them but everybody else benefits from the extra revenue then.

Yep agree that yopu shouldn't have to pay 95% of the cap. Set it at 80 or 85% imo.

 

[theflea]

Another big issue is the Etihad stadium deal. The AFL need to buy that ASAP to stop clubs losing money when they play a home game there! That is ridiculous that a club cannot make a profit on a home game at their home stadium. Perhaps the AFL should look into fixing this deal rather than taxing the successful teams.

This wont work if you have to pay for the loan to buy it out. All your doing is switching the owner, who still has to pay for it, which takes the money out of any dividend to the clubs on a game day basis.