The CBF

[cjwalkley]

Should the CBF work in a simialr way to a HECS loan?

If for example a club receives the CBF, then they have to pay back 40% of any profits they make in the future. That way the AFL isn't just plunging money into black holes or paying for ineptitude. Of course if a club is on the drip for too long, they are going to find themselves merged and relocated as soon as the AFL sees fit. However for a club like Carlton, if they accept the CBF, they pay it back once they are back on their feet. (Assuming they will get there, with Collins in charge I have some doubts).

What are people's thoughts?

 

[bucksisbest]

That's ideal , rather than never seeing the money again and it makes it harder to abuse the system.
But the AFL are too big a push-overs to enforce it.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Mutual obligation?

Anyway it wont matter cause apparently Carltons not on the CBF.

 

[bucksisbest]

Mutual obligation?

Anyway it wont matter cause apparently Carltons not on the CBF.

I can think of one team currently abusing the CBF.

 

[MarkT]

I've heard a lot of proposals and many have merit. The fundamental problem with any system of AFL redistribution, be it permanent "gifts" or temporary loans is that the AFL are the ones who have created the environment that sees clubs as appearing to be unprofitable and on permanent welfare.

Relative to Collingwood, under the current regime and rules, North, for instance, will forever be unprofitable and on a drip system. That places them under the thumb of the AFL which of itself is another can of worms. If the AFL simply undertook to pay a dividend equal to the TPP cap you would probably see every club make a profit - at least initially. Given the 50% increase in TV rights that is absolutely affordable. All of a sudden we aren’t discussing the merits of funding North and we limit these issues to particular circumstances the likes of which Carlton are facing.

Alternatively or additionally, if the AFL allowed clubs to keep all the gate money, raise and keep their own merchandising revenue and/or a good portion of the other revenue streams, including TV rights, were directed directly to the clubs the AFL could levy revenue/profit or impose a flat fee to fund itself. All of a sudden you change an AFL funded club scenario into a club funded AFL.

Of course I am being pretty simplistic and there would have to be a bit more to it but in principle the fundamental issue to solve first is the revenue flows and what really is funding as opposed to correcting over taxing. IMO the AFL over taxes clubs at present and that leads to this welfare argument when in fact it need not exist - at least to the current extent that it does anyway.

As an additional benefit, the greater the clubs control and benefit from their input into revenue generation the more likely they will pursue it with vigour and skill. I know that sounds a bit too capitalist for some but hell what we are doing right now doesn’t seem to be working and has a lot of people up in arms.

The unfortunate reality is that all of this is urinating in the wind, uphill, on an ant farm with genitals covered in honey while the commission continues to exist as it does and with the current players pursuing the current agendas. There is no motivation to move the power balance back to clubs.

If solutions are required for a Carlton type situation and it deemed appropriate to kick in then I’d be very much in favour of some sort of payback arrangement be it part of all. As it stands now though you can’t give Collingwood a better draw than North and then lend them the shortfall in revenue that creates and ask for it back. I don’t subscribe the sometimes quoted theory that if you give North Collingwood’s draw all will be fine but it does make a difference. Therefore if you engineer it so that difference exists you can’t really complain that it eventuates and you can’t ask for the loan to fund it back.

PS apologies for singling out North. They are just a simple example to use.