The Cut the Teams/Too Many Teams in Victoria thread

[Ned_Flanders]

the blues would probably play a 5/6 split - non vic clubs @ docklands , vic clubs @ mcg

if it were my decision i'd play the non vic clubs @ princes park !!

You can't have just 1.5 teams at docklands

 

[The Darkman]

How was your lunch? Did you think up any new theories along the way?

Fitzroy's prospects, had they been supported by the AFL to remain in the competition were in fact reasonable. Their plan to return to the Brunswick Street Oval to use as their permanent training venue had been approved by the then Fitzroy council. They had a functioning and profitable social club where there administrative base was in Northcote, just up the road from Brunswick Street. Their total debt was 2.7 million, an amount that was very manageable according to Greg Swann who worked on the Fitzroy books in 1996.

Would the profits have much chance of increasing to a level to pay off the 2.7million significantly? How were the profits derived? Sale of assets at higher than book value? Would they have had sufficient cash flow to compete with the bigger clubs?

I knew you would throw this one into the ring. Wasn't Michael Brennan the administrator? What's his view? Is this the same Greg Swann who is now looking down the barrel of a $8million+ debt (not of his fault) at Brisbane and couldn't get Carlton out of mediocrity after getting Judd? My question. Why was this statement not made 10 to 15 years ago? I think he is trying to divert attention from Brisbane's current issues.

Such as?

Borrowing money from Nauru. Was this an unhedged loan or a hedged loan? Were the interest rates subject to changes in interest rates on Nauru or Australia? Were some of the profits caused by the change in exchange rates?

Playing games at Princes Park (twice). Moving to Western Oval. Not upgrading Brunswick Oval (not thinking long term). Playing games in Tasmania. Allowing membership to grow old without the following generation. I haven't even looked on the internet.

How is it Richmond and Footscray, who went to supporters for donations able to get out of trouble but your lot couldn't. Given Richmond is inner city like Collingwood and Carlton.

I contend that the AFL didn't give Fitzroy support. AFL commissioners telling potential sponsors of the Club in the early 1990s not to bother wasting their money as Fitzroy wouldn't be in the competition for much longer is not really being supportive in my book. That's just one of the many examples. Canberra, Tasmania, Schweppes, Grollo, Bernie Ahern, Hecron, CUB, Junction Oval, Solo, Galaxy, Port Powerlines, Melbourne United, redirection of dividends, Nauru, Princes Park and so on, are others.

You have proof the AFL commission told sponsors not to support Fitzroy? How do you know these organisations didn't come to that conclusion on their own using their own projection models?

Canberra. My recollection is that Fitzroy planned to play in the rugby dominated suburb of Bruce (the stadium is a narrow cake tin), next to the AIS. Home of the Brumbies and Raiders. Having lived in Canberra, the northern suburbs are dominated by the rugby codes and they would have benefited from playing out at Manuka on the south side.

How? List the support the AFL gave?

Well they gave money in 1996 so that you could get through the season. Supported the Footscray merger. I still haven't looked at the computer.

I grow tired. I have other threads that are more interesting to spend another 10 minutes on.

 

[The Darkman]

Didn't say large, rather larger than North and the Bulldogs, and the support was there in the GF years, although perhaps not as much as in 2004/05.

I do believe that compared to 2004/05 when we drew remarkable crowds for a "small" club against interstate sides (see 52,539 against Brisbane Rd 5, 2004 as best example), that the 2009/10 crowds suffered somewhat from the Lyon game plan - rightly or wrongly.

Our average home crowds in from 2004 - 2011:
2004 - 37,026 (ranked 5th)
2005 - 36,856 (ranked 7th)
2006 - 35,193 (ranked 7th)
2007 - 37,921 (ranked 7th)
2008 - 37,034 (ranked 8th)
2009 - 33,945 (ranked 8th)
2010 - 38,023 (ranked 5th)
2011 - 36,085 (ranked 7th)

Admittedly in recent years crowds have plunged, but have still remained higher than the Bulldogs for all of 2012-2014 and North in 2012. When you have a club go over the other side of the cliff without a flag so quickly like St Kilda has in recent years then I think that is understandable, even if it is disappointing.

The real challenge will be membership. This is certainly an area that requires a lot of work, but small steps in the right direction have been made this year, and I'm confident that next year will see more positive growth. The return to Moorabbin should help this greatly.

If you take out the Wellington match, your lot have averaged 26k per game with games against Dogs, Geelong, Sydney, Freo & Richmond to come. Say, 29k to each of them gets you to about 27.5k average for the year. That's higher than the Dogs and comparable with North and Geelong.

 

[sverik25]

If you take out the Wellington match, your lot have averaged 26k per game with games against Dogs, Geelong, Sydney, Freo & Richmond to come. Say, 29k to each of them gets you to about 27.5k average for the year. That's higher than the Dogs and comparable with North and Geelong.

I'd be rapt if that eventuated but I think it's pretty unlikely. The Freo game will drag our average down - likely to be a crowd of 17-18,000.

Hopefully we can crack 30,000 against the Dogs on Saturday night though.

I am confident that with the positive steps the club has made this season towards re-engaging its supporter base (see return to Moorabbin, improved media department etc) and promoting a bright future that we won't see crowds of 2014 levels anytime soon.

 

[scalesofjustice]

Yeah, maybe the NRL should cut some Sydney teams too.

Idiotic thread.

 

[The_Wookie]

How was your lunch? Did you think up any new theories along the way?

You need to stop playing the man. Consider it a friendly moderator note at this time.

Would the profits have much chance of increasing to a level to pay off the 2.7million significantly? How were the profits derived? Sale of assets at higher than book value? Would they have had sufficient cash flow to compete with the bigger clubs?

They didn't need to compete with bigger clubs. They just needed to pay off their outstanding debt. The AFL apparently refused to allow them to use their distributions to do so.

Is this the same Greg Swann who is now looking down the barrel of a $8million+ debt (not of his fault) at Brisbane and couldn't get Carlton out of mediocrity after getting Judd? My question. Why was this statement not made 10 to 15 years ago? I think he is trying to divert attention from Brisbane's current issues.

This is the same Greg Swann who helped get Collingwood out of debt and was a highly respected administrator, who sorted out a lot of Carltons debt, and is in Brisbane because the AFL wants him there.

Playing games at Princes Park (twice). Moving to Western Oval. Not upgrading Brunswick Oval (not thinking long term). Playing games in Tasmania. Allowing membership to grow old without the following generation. I haven't even looked on the internet.

The issue with Brunswick Oval wasn't the Lions. They wanted upgrades, but neither the Cricket club nor local Council were particularly interested. It had literally nothing to do with Fitzroys long term vision for the ground. Playing games in Tasmania and Canberra was not a negative - and was probably visionary in hindsight, especially when you see how well Hawthorn and North have done out of it - worse, the Lions paid their own way without any AFL support. They briefly considered moving to Sydney, Brisbane and even Perth before there were VFL teams there.

You have proof the AFL commission told sponsors not to support Fitzroy? How do you know these organisations didn't come to that conclusion on their own using their own projection models?

The AFL refused to allow Schweppes to sponsor the Lions due to a perceived conflict with the leagues sponsor, Coca Cola. The league refused to allow Hecron to take an ownership stake in the club, resulting in a much lower than expected sponsorship. This is mentioned in Football Limited.

 

[telsor]

You cant be wrong can you. Just make up more 'stuff' if it keeps you happy.

What did I 'make up'?

Expecting 30k to have a proxy take over a club is a stupid idea, & I think you know that. Dont you?

It's not a great idea, but it's a better idea than "We'll just sit back passively and wait for someone who has nothing to gain from giving us a club to give us a club". You'll note it was one of a number of suggestions that involve actually DOING SOMETHING to push your cause.

Lets just wait for the AFL to present its plan. They run the league. They have the say. They have the football political power.

In the mean time, Hawthorn & North will try & keep the money rolling in. I'm sure they will be doing their own politicking.

So, wait....You mean the decision makers CAN be influenced???

 

[telsor]

the blues would probably play a 5/6 split - non vic clubs @ docklands , vic clubs @ mcg

if it were my decision i'd play the non vic clubs @ princes park !!

Like it matters where the Blues WANT to play....

 

[The Darkman]

They didn't need to compete with bigger clubs. They just needed to pay off their outstanding debt. The AFL apparently refused to allow them to use their distributions to do so.

The AFL is a competition. Look at the BF website. For members, facilities, sponsors, television time plus that thing on the field. You can hate Eddie as much as you like (I don't like Collingwood due to too many racist incidents) but they are a club with big ideas. To me Fitzroy looked like it was trying to "buy the Harbour Bridge with the proceeds of a lemonade stand".

Not allowed to use distributions to pay off debt. There's some details missing here.

Playing games in Tasmania and Canberra was not a negative - and was probably visionary in hindsight, especially when you see how well Hawthorn and North have done out of it - worse, the Lions paid their own way without any AFL support.

Hawthorn and North did well. Why didn't Fitzroy? So, there was a process issue on how make a profit from these ventures. It also screams governance risk. I'm sure NASA weren't the first people to imagine putting a man on the moon but were one of the first to have principles and processes in place to get there. If you commit without having a proper plan in place, it's going to be a disaster.

The AFL refused to allow Schweppes to sponsor the Lions due to a perceived conflict with the leagues sponsor, Coca Cola.

Toyota is a premier partner of the AFL. Geelong is sponsored by Ford and Carlton are sponsored by Hyundai. This is not the full story.

You need to stop playing the man. Consider it a friendly moderator note at this time.

So he can insult me without recourse. Fine.

 

[The_Wookie]

The AFL is a competition. Look at the BF website. For members, facilities, sponsors, television time plus that thing on the field. You can hate Eddie as much as you like (I don't like Collingwood due to too many racist incidents) but they are a club with big ideas. To me Fitzroy looked like it was trying to "buy the Harbour Bridge with the proceeds of a lemonade stand".

They don't have to beat the big clubs though, theres always going to be big clubs and small clubs. Fitzroy just had to do enough to keep themselves going. IF they'd managed for another six years, they'd still be here.

Not allowed to use distributions to pay off debt. There's some details missing here.

Sure. Roylion can probably tell you more.

Hawthorn and North did well. Why didn't Fitzroy? So, there was a process issue on how make a profit from these ventures. It also screams governance risk. I'm sure NASA weren't the first people to imagine putting a man on the moon but were one of the first to have principles and processes in place to get there. If you commit without having a proper plan in place, it's going to be a disaster.

Fitzroy went before the Tasmanian Government was on board and had to pay its own way. Games weren't played at Aurora and Bellerive, but at North Hobart Oval. The VFL sent the Swans to Sydney - they still went broke - twice. The Bears failed in Brisbane - twice. The process was nowhere near what it is today because the money just didn't exist in the league to have the same process.

Toyota is a premier partner of the AFL. Geelong is sponsored by Ford and Carlton are sponsored by Hyundai. This is not the full story.

Tell that to clubs that have had Tiger Airlines try to sponsor them when Qantas was league sponsor. It depends on how rigid the sponsor is and the deal they've signed. At the time Coke was - and the AFL had just managed to blow up its relationships with two different beer companies, so they were a little on edge about shweppes for some reason. Plus you know the whole wanting a team out thing they had going.

 

[madmug]

What did I 'make up'?



It's not a great idea, but it's a better idea than "We'll just sit back passively and wait for someone who has nothing to gain from giving us a club to give us a club". You'll note it was one of a number of suggestions that involve actually DOING SOMETHING to push your cause.



So, wait....You mean the decision makers CAN be influenced???

BS argument.

You write rubbish to try to support your argument then go on the attack to deflect.

'DOING SOMETHING' like hijacking a club

'Influenced'? Of course , In the first place I'm the one who said it would be a political decision!!. I gave you a definition of 'politics' & how it works. You're the one who kept saying it will only be some sort of narrow (minded) 'economic' decision.

Gee you are becoming very ragged. You need to remember what side of the argument you are on!

Tas has put in an application. Discussion would be ongoing at different times since then. The AFL are sensitive to media discussion here & in Victoria about the FIFO monies & have stated the need for a plan for football here.

As I've said, I dont know what the end result will be. But they certainly wont expect Tasmania to do the sort of garbage you have espoused.

Lets keep it realistic shall we.

 

[telsor]

The AFL is a competition. Look at the BF website. For members, facilities, sponsors, television time plus that thing on the field. You can hate Eddie as much as you like (I don't like Collingwood due to too many racist incidents) but they are a club with big ideas. To me Fitzroy looked like it was trying to "buy the Harbour Bridge with the proceeds of a lemonade stand".

Considering clubs such as yours have been bankrupt, and saved, several times, clearly the league chooses where that 'competition' applies.

Considering that when it was allowed to die and be absorbed by Brisbane, Fitzroy was still more viable than Sydney, perhaps they should have let 'competition' see Sydney die and allow Fiztory to move and absorb the corpse.

 

[telsor]

BS argument.

You write rubbish to try to support your argument then go on the attack to deflect.

Who have I 'attacked'?

I've said a passive stance is a losing strategy, because your argument weakens as time goes on due to the declining (relative) population and economy of Tasmania, but if you consider a different argument to be an 'attack', then you really need to harden up.

'DOING SOMETHING' like hijacking a club

One of a number of suggestions.

'Influenced'? Of course , In the first place I'm the one who said it would be a political decision!!. I gave you a definition of 'politics' & how it works. You're the one who kept saying it will only be some sort of narrow (minded) 'economic' decision.

Gee you are becoming very ragged. You need to remember what side of the argument you are on!

And what side do you think I'm on? Considering your issues have been with me making suggestions designed to HELP TASMANIA GET A CLUB.

You think it's about politics...but you consider the best way for that to happen is to do nothing...how does that work? Have you never seen a protest rally, heard of people writing to politicians (another of my suggestions BTW, although you only seem to notice the more extreme ideas).

You want it it be about politics, but you don't want to 'play politics' to make it happen....leaving it to those who do ( like Hawthorn and North) who have a vested interest in not having a Tas team to actually influence the decision.

Tas has put in an application. Discussion would be ongoing at different times since then. The AFL are sensitive to media discussion here & in Victoria about the FIFO monies & have stated the need for a plan for football here.

As I've said, I dont know what the end result will be. But they certainly wont expect Tasmania to do the sort of garbage you have espoused.

Lets keep it realistic shall we.

If you do nothing of substance, you'll get nothing of substance. The AFL already get what they want from you and any report on football in Tas that comes out soon wont have anything substantive about a Tasmanian AFL team, because the AFL isn't going to make a definite decision on further expansion or killing off current teams to make room until GWS/GC are well and truly bedded in unless they're pushed....Something you seem to want to avoid, by any of the methods I've mentioned.

What you'll get is a modification of AFLTAS, some guidelines for what is going to happen with the FIFO clubs and *maybe* a vague statement that at some indeterminate point in the future a Tas Team is on the agenda (and by the time that comes up, you'll be even smaller (relatively) and even more settled into being a 'part time' home for a club, causing that statement to be 'reviewed' again).

I'm trying to tell you different, possible, ways to get a club, and you're preferring to act in a way that guarantees you never will...And yet you seem to think I'm the one against the idea?????

 

[madmug]

Who have I 'attacked'?

I've said a passive stance is a losing strategy, because your argument weakens as time goes on due to the declining (relative) population and economy of Tasmania, but if you consider a different argument to be an 'attack', then you really need to harden up.



One of a number of suggestions.



And what side do you think I'm on? Considering your issues have been with me making suggestions designed to HELP TASMANIA GET A CLUB.

You think it's about politics...but you consider the best way for that to happen is to do nothing...how does that work? Have you never seen a protest rally, heard of people writing to politicians (another of my suggestions BTW, although you only seem to notice the more extreme ideas).

You want it it be about politics, but you don't want to 'play politics' to make it happen....leaving it to those who do ( like Hawthorn and North) who have a vested interest in not having a Tas team to actually influence the decision.



If you do nothing of substance, you'll get nothing of substance. The AFL already get what they want from you and any report on football in Tas that comes out soon wont have anything substantive about a Tasmanian AFL team, because the AFL isn't going to make a definite decision on further expansion or killing off current teams to make room until GWS/GC are well and truly bedded in unless they're pushed....Something you seem to want to avoid, by any of the methods I've mentioned.

What you'll get is a modification of AFLTAS, some guidelines for what is going to happen with the FIFO clubs and *maybe* a vague statement that at some indeterminate point in the future a Tas Team is on the agenda (and by the time that comes up, you'll be even smaller (relatively) and even more settled into being a 'part time' home for a club, causing that statement to be 'reviewed' again).

I'm trying to tell you different, possible, ways to get a club, and you're preferring to act in a way that guarantees you never will...And yet you seem to think I'm the one against the idea?????

Keep at it.

Saying 'we' do nothing is either ignorant or dishonest.

Trying to take bits of my post out of context is similarly pretty poor.

All along you have focused on the economics of what does Tasmania have to offer the AFL. Now you're telling me how to run the politics of it!!!

You argue your own 'opinion' as 'fact'.

I said I dont know the outcome, but I do know what is said publicly in the media, what some major players, including Gil have indicated. I do know the mood on these FIFO deals here with the public & some politicians directly, I do know the politics of the FIFO deals.

You can pull this to bits too, but it would just cheapen your 'argument' even further.

Just stick to your view of the $ & cents argument on the matter. Going off message has seen you struggle, big time.

 

[Our Game]

Ideally there should be a maximum of 7 teams in Victoria and 11 teams interstate A merger of Melbourne and North maybe and relocate St Kilda - Tassie/NZ playing out of both Hobart and launceston and Footscray - Nth QLD

 

[sverik25]

Ideally there should be a maximum of 7 teams in Victoria and 11 teams interstate A merger of Melbourne and North maybe and relocate St Kilda - Tassie/NZ playing out of both Hobart and launceston and Footscray - Nth QLD

If you're going to merge any teams, it would be far better IMO to just merge the four smallest Melbourne teams into two rather than having relocations. Tassie is not going to accept a relocated team, and any NZ team if it ever eventuates should be something that is uniquely Kiwi if it wants any chance of success.

 

[Our Game]

If you're going to merge any teams, it would be far better IMO to just merge the four smallest Melbourne teams into two rather than having relocations. Tassie is not going to accept a relocated team, and any NZ team if it ever eventuates should be something that is uniquely Kiwi if it wants any chance of success.

Depends what the TV wants in numbers of games each week I dont see the AFL having any new start up teams for a very long time.

 

[The Darkman]

Considering clubs such as yours have been bankrupt, and saved, several times, clearly the league chooses where that 'competition' applies.

Considering that when it was allowed to die and be absorbed by Brisbane, Fitzroy was still more viable than Sydney, perhaps they should have let 'competition' see Sydney die and allow Fiztory to move and absorb the corpse.

The Sydney experience shows moving a club to a new environment is more difficult than previously thought, particularly moving into rugby league heartland. It is questionable if a relocated Fitzroy could have performed better. Thus some of the opinions on this thread any new teams should be new clubs formed in AFL dominant states such as Tasmania and WA.

Interesting comments. I can hear the chest beating 'we got ourselves out of trouble' statement coming as well. Your club relied on the whole Victorian community to survive. Wasn't the biggest individual donation ($10,000) to the 'Save our Skins' campaign made by the president of South Melbourne, Craig Kimberley. Wasn't a game between former players played in Windy Hill (scene of the infamous 18 May 1974 match) one of the main fund raisers. The same comments could be aimed at your club so don't start the 'holier than thou' stand.

If the clubs, including the Victorian based clubs, really wanted Fitzroy to remain in the AFL, they would have acted accordingly.

 

[telsor]

Keep at it.

Saying 'we' do nothing is either ignorant or dishonest.

Trying to take bits of my post out of context is similarly pretty poor.

All along you have focused on the economics of what does Tasmania have to offer the AFL. Now you're telling me how to run the politics of it!!!

You argue your own 'opinion' as 'fact'.

I said I dont know the outcome, but I do know what is said publicly in the media, what some major players, including Gil have indicated. I do know the mood on these FIFO deals here with the public & some politicians directly, I do know the politics of the FIFO deals.

You can pull this to bits too, but it would just cheapen your 'argument' even further.

Just stick to your view of the $ & cents argument on the matter. Going off message has seen you struggle, big time.

It seems whatever argument I use, your response remains the same "you're wrong!" without any proof or argument of substance to back up that assertion.

 

[Engimal]

Toyota is a premier partner of the AFL. Geelong is sponsored by Ford and Carlton are sponsored by Hyundai. This is not the full story.

I'm pretty sure that the deal was that motor vehicle company sponsorships before Toyota became a partner were allowed to stay but no other motor vehicle company sponsorships could be made in the future, while Toyota remained a sponsor of the AFL.

 

[The Darkman]

It seems whatever argument I use, your response remains the same "you're wrong!" without any proof or argument of substance to back up that assertion.

Like your assertion F-I-T-Z-R-O-Y was more viable than Sydney in 1996. Sydney got through to the grand final that year compared to coming last by a long way (4.5 games and percentage below 50). Average home crowds in Sydney were 24.5k even though all opposition were located in other states and at least 1,000km away. This is compared to the wooden spooner's average home crowds of 9.9k even though the majority of opposing team's supporters lived in the same city.

Could you also supply details of the 'several times' the Swans were bankrupt.

Do some research and stop relying on your Dad's opinion.

 

[madmug]

It seems whatever argument I use, your response remains the same "you're wrong!" without any proof or argument of substance to back up that assertion.

Read your own stuff! You totally ignore other views.

I said repeatedly the decision will be political in nature. You keep on about 'value' to the AFL where you really mean money to support Victorian clubs.

Anyway, the footy big heads will decide. You or I wont be asked an opinion. Although I will offer one!

I have contacted 'some people' about this over the journey. Many others have done so as well, so I'm told.

So who knows what when or how, but some plan will be presented. It has to be well before Hawthorn start to agitate for their FIFO hand outs to continue.

 

[Papa G]

Not so much judging by the financial results from it. Considering the size of the crowds they're getting, even the revised numbers aren't especially pretty...Drop down to 'average' years....

Regardless, you'd be looking at 2.4M in WA for 2 clubs (1.2M ea), 6M Vics for 6 clubs (1m ea, not counting Tas support for Hawthorn), and 1.6M in SA for 2 clubs (0.8M ea)...add in the uneven spread (~30% support Port) and Port would be very much on the small side.

60,000 members to 62,000 members equals 70:30.

Port's financials will be fine this year. Port came from a very dark place (kind of like Richmond a few times over the last 20 years), there were some very good reasons for both Adelaide clubs to not declare profits last year, but we'll be fine going forward. Lack of understanding of issues outside your own duck pond as usual.

 

[Hawkk]

60,000 members to 62,000 members equals 70:30.

Port's financials will be fine this year. Port came from a very dark place (kind of like Richmond a few times over the last 20 years), there were some very good reasons for both Adelaide clubs to not declare profits last year, but we'll be fine going forward. Lack of understanding of issues outside your own duck pond as usual.

So we can assume you won't need heavy AFL subsidisation?

Awesome the Vic clubs get their money back

 

[The Blue Baggers]

60,000 members to 62,000 members equals 70:30.

Port's financials will be fine this year. Port came from a very dark place (kind of like Richmond a few times over the last 20 years), there were some very good reasons for both Adelaide clubs to not declare profits last year, but we'll be fine going forward. Lack of understanding of issues outside your own duck pond as usual.

pre Adelaide Oval thought Port Adelaide was in real trouble but since the move to AO Port is a lock

this thread is all hypothetical but if the league reduced to 12 teams there would 2 teams in Adelaide , 2 in Perth and 6 in Melbourne / Geelong with the Hawks playing some games in Tasmania plus Swans and Lions