Remove this Banner Ad

The AFL and current Equalisation plans

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

The AFL has recently returned from its sojourns with the NFL in America to try to resolve the thorny issue of Equalisation. Since the return, information has been coming to us in drips and drabs - as the AFL likes to do. Heres what we know so far.

On August 28th, the AFL released a statement on the 2014 Fixture which announced changes in fixturing that would assist smaller clubs to an extent by more evenly weighing up the teams clubs play twice. When the fixture was released on October 31, a number of clubs were featured in marquee slots and with better exposure, whereas some big clubs will be less exposed than they have been previously accustomed to.

On October 24th, John Ralph and Mcheal Warner reported in the Heraldsun ('AFL Fans could pay an extra $2") that an additional $2.00 would be charged at the gate next season as a form of equalisation tax. This apparently will not affect club memberships. Half of the gate tax would go to the home club, with the other half going to an equalisation pool. General admission prices have been frozen at $20 for the last four years. The Age says that the levy will not apply to home games at Etihad.

On November 16th, Micheal Gleeson reported in The Age ("AFL signs sports drink deal") that the AFL will has delivered a new centralised beverage sponsorship deal that has delivered more money than previously, by segmenting the different types of drinks rather than having a single category. Instead of a single beverage sponsor, there is now Milk, Water and Soft Drink categories amongst others.

Grant Baker, writing for the Heraldsun on November 17th ("The AFl will be transparent over its aid to clubs") reports that the AFL is embarking on a policy of greater transparency when it comes to the aid grants it hands out to clubs after some questions arose over the amounts paid to Brisbane and Melbourne.

More to come as the AFL releases it. Ill be updating this post and thread as more information comes to light.
 
The transparency article was interesting. Not that the AFL haven't generally been clear as to how much is given to each club, but it can only be a good thing if the AFL start breaking it down and advising the conditions attached (if any) to the various amounts handed out.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #3
The transparency article was interesting. Not that the AFL haven't generally been clear as to how much is given to each club, but it can only be a good thing if the AFL start breaking it down and advising the conditions attached (if any) to the various amounts handed out.

I think we might have to wait for that information to be released as part of the 'leaks" leading up to the annual report release in march
 
Not to mention, being more "open and transparent" might involve telling all the clubs about it, but not the public.


Also, the current equalisation strategy (2012-16) was broken into 2 sections, 2012-14 and 2015-16. As I'm sure the second part will be planned in advance, the effective cutover isn't that far off.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

The transparency idea is great. They should also provide clubs and the public with some transparency around the benefits and costs to each club of their relevant fixtures and stadium deals including opponents, timeslots, media exposure (National/ Local FTA/Foxtel) and venue. Creating a model based on factors such as these can more accurately provide detail as to why certain clubs receive more "disequalisation fund" money and what needs to be done to address these discrepancies.
 
The transparency idea is great. They should also provide clubs and the public with some transparency around the benefits and costs to each club of their relevant fixtures and stadium deals including opponents, timeslots, media exposure (National/ Local FTA/Foxtel) and venue. Creating a model based on factors such as these can more accurately provide detail as to why certain clubs receive more "disequalisation fund" money and what needs to be done to address these discrepancies.

One of the problems with that is any value put on a Friday night game (for example) is, at best, a very rough estimate, and would vary from club to club and week to week, often due to unrelated and uncontrollable factors (eg, the Ashes being on).

Further, to use your club as an example...If the MCG is a bad deal for small crowds, and your club insists on playing there regardless, why would the league need to compensate you for your choice?
 
One of the problems with that is any value put on a Friday night game (for example) is, at best, a very rough estimate, and would vary from club to club and week to week, often due to unrelated and uncontrollable factors (eg, the Ashes being on).

Further, to use your club as an example...If the MCG is a bad deal for small crowds, and your club insists on playing there regardless, why would the league need to compensate you for your choice?

Stadium deals are relative to the deals other clubs may have and other venues. So that factor would be more of an issue for clubs like North, Dogs and Saints.
 
Stadium deals are relative to the deals other clubs may have and other venues. So that factor would be more of an issue for clubs like North, Dogs and Saints.

No 2 stadiums will ever have equal deals, there are just too many variables. Even if crowd numbers paid 1 for 1, what premium do you pay for the capacity to have 80,000 at the MCG? What do you pay for better/worse seating and facilities? What do you pay for a roof at Docklands on a cold, rainy winters day?

Even at the same ground, 2 clubs could play every week in the same slot and get different crowds, due to weather, competing events, etc etc etc...how do you factor that in?


I agree it should be better, but the problem with transparency when nobody can properly interpret the details is that it tends to just feed arguments that can never get resolved in a fair way.

e.g. Saying it cost Richmond $94,385 to play GWS at Docklands on a sunday evening in June will never be more than a rough guess, and there will always those who say it was more or less than that. Why add fuel to a fire that can never be put out?
 
For me Equalisation means taking from the strong and giving it to the weak. That's communism in my book and communism failed.
A famous politician once said you don't make the poor rich by making the rich poor
 
For me Equalisation means taking from the strong and giving it to the weak. That's communism in my book and communism failed.
A famous politician once said you don't make the poor rich by making the rich poor

Ha what a load of tripe. Equalisation is creating a level playing field instead of skewing things to favour particular clubs.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

And its tv ratings are national. and its still a 20 year plan that was enacted with the unanimous support of all clubs.
I keep hearing this 20 year plan. Can you explain the 20 year plan to me?
Does it mean that GWS will have to run 20 years before it makes a profit?
On that note i must go to work now. Have a nice day.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

The AFL and current Equalisation plans

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top