The Haves And Have Nots.

[Falchoon]

You know what, we had the same playing field as you, a dirt poor suburb that championed the battler.. we grew that into a superpower.. why didn't you?

accessibility

ie railway lines

and a 30 year head start

 

[Teffy]

Think about it this way - if Pies struck out on their own, had their own TV deal; the TV deal for the rest would drop by far more than 1/17th.

Yeah? Who would they play?

 

[MagpieJoel]

Yeah? Who would they play?

Pretty sure that's not what he is arguing. I believe he is saying that if Collingwood were able to negotiate their own deal, rather than play in their own competition.

 

[Teffy]

Meanwhile, restricting clubs with money will create huge war chests.

War chests that could never be used to go to war.

Ticket prices can finally drop and the game can move out of the board room and revert back to the people, where it belongs.

 

[McOrist]

You have totally misunderstood his point.

His whole idea was Utah and Arizona are the same, however the reason North went to Utah was not for the altitude training, but for the bonding and learning experience. Whereas many others seem to think the main reason the Pies are any good now is they spend a heap of cash going to Arizona.

It's a long way to go just for bonding and learning. They could do that at the A.I.S. in Canberra or climb sand dunes at Portsea. The fact that Utah is also a Rocky Mountain state with a fair bit of altitude was just a lucky coincidence? North can't be as short of cash as they make out!

If many people believe that the main reason the Pies are any good is their trips to Arizona -then they are clutching at straws. How about having a look at recruiting, the age/experience profile, their weekly sports medicine management, quality of coaching, not to mention the fact ignored by the 'head in the sand' brigade -the players actually can play!!

 

[Balony_pony16]

The Biggest factor between the haves and have nots is the draw...there really couldnt be a better way to give a team a strong advantage both on and off the field then the giving a team a favorable draw.

The fact that all melbourne teams dont travel to all other grounds away from melbourne still amazes me. It would also be a dream to market a team that secures in the prime timeslots like friday nights, anzac days...etc...

 

[morax]

I see it differently. Instead of capping the top end to much, lets just give clubs such as north the bullet.

Poor performers have been a burden on the league since Jesus was a boy. These clubs need to be put on notice and clubs that are world leaders should be allowed to grow and prosper

 

[HFF]

The Biggest factor between the haves and have nots is the draw...there really couldnt be a better way to give a team a strong advantage both on and off the field then the giving a team a favorable draw.

The fact that all melbourne teams dont travel to all other grounds away from melbourne still amazes me. It would also be a dream to market a team that secures in the prime timeslots like friday nights, anzac days...etc...

I'm sure you understand the workings as to why the draw is the way it is?

Surely, we don't have to go through this old chestnut again?

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

Nothing wrong with dominant clubs. Because if a dominant club is mismanaged, they will fall also, look no further than Carlton.

Now that Carlton are being managed properly, they should be able to stay put.

Hell, look at Collingwood before Eddie took over.

EPL has the same 4 or 5 sides dominating year in year out and their competition seems fine.

 

[Lemma]

Bringing out the EPL as a favourable comparison? notsureifsrs.jpg

 

[Rooiginal]

Look Teffy is basically a Troll so don't take much notice of what he is saying.

As a North supporter I don't think a cap of Football department spending is fair on the larger clubs. It really isn't giving supporters the chance to contribute to a teams success by supporting their club financially.

I think there are a number of areas of wealth distribution that need to be addressed in the afl. Primarily fixturing, stadium deals are also a major concern. North make around $800,000 for all of their home games this year. By selling 2 games to Tassie next year with a crowd of probably 10,000 at each game we make 1 million dollars. How can that be?

We had 42,000 last Friday night at Etihad how can we make less from that game than a game in Tassie? I don’t get it.

Anyway the AFL are addressing the issue at present hopefully they come up with a fair compromise.

 

[oak79]

West Coast 'won' the spoon last year. We were rich then too....

Capping football spending is ridiculous - if we become so controllig that all clubs are the same, then let's just give each club a premiership every 18 years.

Innovation shouldn't be stifled.

The real problem is 10 suburban clubs in Victoria in a national competition. But the current AFL adminstration hasn't got the guts to change that

 

[Teffy]

West Coast 'won' the spoon last year. We were rich then too....

Wow!

So what's up with Melbourne and Richmond?

They have won two spoons each in the past few years, shouldn't they have improved twice as fast as West Coast?

....and although I know that Carlton were bankrupt at the time, surely they should have won a couple of premierships by now?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Wow!

So what's up with Melbourne and Richmond?

They have won two spoons each in the past few years, shouldn't they have improved twice as fast as West Coast?

They have been crap for 30 years. Collingwood has been going to Arizona for 2 years.

I dont know what they have been doing wrong for the previous 28 years but off field spending hasnt been the issue for the entire time. There have been various issues at these clubs but most of them have been cultural rather than financial. You dont need money to select wisely at the draft. You cant blame wasting picks on Johnstone and Oakley-Nicholls on resources.

As for West Coasts "miraculous" recovery, people forget they were premiers a short while back. Amazing what a difference when you get 5-6 of your best premiership players finally fully fit. Plus they did well in the Judd trade.

 

[Teffy]

You dont need money to select wisely at the draft.

So, you're basically telling me that money can't buy the best and most expansive drafting resources (including people)?

Do you honestly expect me, or any other rational person, to believe that?

 

[oak79]

People that believe clubs should be brought down to the lowest common denominator already have an attitude of defeat. If I supported a poorer club, I'd want my club to improve - not bring successful clubs down to there level.

 

[Teffy]

People that believe clubs should be brought down to the lowest common denominator already have an attitude of defeat. If I supported a poorer club, I'd want my club to improve - not bring successful clubs down to there level.

Tell me.

How do you achieve that in a capitalist society with a competition that has a lop sided draw, a lop sided schedule, massive existing historical advantages and no cap on administrative spending?

The boards and administrations of at least 6 AFL clubs are eagerly awaiting your reply.

 

[Slattery_20]

An actual, legit, no-holds-barred level playing field would be tragically hilarious.

"Pies, Hawks, WCE - do what you want, you operate under the same rules and conditions as North, Bris, Port. No restrictions on the size you can get to, no equalisation, sign your own stadium deals, play where you want - you are allowed to do exactly as much as you can afford."

Fortunately, the AFL has decided to artificially make an uneven playing field, which gives the big clubs only limited pathways to use their power. You can't stifle all those pathways.

 

[TedDougChris]

An actual, legit, no-holds-barred level playing field would be tragically hilarious.

This is actually what should happen.

Equal access to all clubs for Friday night (it used to be Norths domain, let's not forget this).

Equal access to all clubs for Anzac Day games and other blockbusters.

Equalisation of the draw, so that all clubs play each other home and away over a certain period of time, with no favouritism/bias.

Equal number of 'relocated' games, to help promote the game, so it's not just North, Dogs and Richmond selling games interstate.

Introduce all these steps, watch for a few years to see if the situation improves. If not, then discuss regulating other factors or restrict spending. Knee jerk reactions at the moment are just silly.

 

[Teffy]

An actual, legit, no-holds-barred level playing field would be tragically hilarious.

"Pies, Hawks, WCE - do what you want, you operate under the same rules and conditions as North, Bris, Port. No restrictions on the size you can get to, no equalisation, sign your own stadium deals, play where you want - you are allowed to do exactly as much as you can afford."

Fortunately, the AFL has decided to artificially make an uneven playing field, which gives the big clubs only limited pathways to use their power. You can't stifle all those pathways.

Then you can't get around the fact that money will be the determining factor in paving the way to success.

Sure, a battler will appear every now and then against the odds, but the competition would not be a true "competition".

 

[Hornberger]

What the AFL needs to do is under fund the salary cap increases. The salary cap with increase around $20m over the next CBA. The AFL should then only increase the base distrubition to the clubs by $10m. The AFL also then sets aside an additional $100m for equalisation fund.

West Coast and Collingwood would have to pay an extra $2m per season on player payments out of their own pocket limiting their football department spending. The clubs at the very bottom would recieve funding for 125% of salary cap increase meaning they would have an extra $500k for their football departments. The rest of clubs would then sit somewhere in the middle.

The important thing would be to devise a distribution mechanism that doesn't provide clubs disincentives to improving their financial position.

 

[Lach72]

This is actually what should happen.

Equal access to all clubs for Friday night (it used to be Norths domain, let's not forget this).

Equal access to all clubs for Anzac Day games and other blockbusters.

Equalisation of the draw, so that all clubs play each other home and away over a certain period of time, with no favouritism/bias.

Equal number of 'relocated' games, to help promote the game, so it's not just North, Dogs and Richmond selling games interstate.

Introduce all these steps, watch for a few years to see if the situation improves. If not, then discuss regulating other factors or restrict spending. Knee jerk reactions at the moment are just silly.

I posted this elsewhere:

I love this equalisation stuff.

The AFL pays for Victorian footy.

West Coast and Freo bank roll WA footy...Pay for the development of the players, support the WAFL clubs and cash flows down through the levels.

Vic clubs get the fruits of this as well.
So essentially, we pay for the development of the Lance Franklin's, Andrew Fasolo's/Andrew Krakouer's and the David/Andrew Swallow's etc while the AFL pays for the Vic players.
We pay for the initial development of Hawthorn's/Collingwood's/North's etc players. Awesome.

So, now the AFL, who also get money from Freo and West Coast, are going to give more money to clubs who "need" it, and probably have already been given money from the AFL, that West Coast and Freo have contributed to, due to the 'equalisation" of the draw.

Never mind that we both have a heap of this "shit" fixturing that everyone always bleats about.

We made a "massive 400k" profit last year...We're rich.

Depending on the year, we're roughly 2-3 million behind Vic clubs every year. For what? Absolutely no benefit to our clubs.

We get no priority access to WA players. Lance Franklin gets to Hawthorn at no cost to them.

So, by all means lets equalise the competition.

 

[oak79]

If money was the only factor, the Saints wouldn't have been in the last 3 grandfinals, and the Dogs in the last couple of prelims. Money is only 1 factor.

You want a fair competition? Then reduce the number of teams in Melbourne. The Market is over saturated in victoria - and that needs to be address. Clubs shouldn't be getting hand outs, and trying to hold back other clubs while this exists.

 

[Teffy]

If money was the only factor, the Saints wouldn't have been in the last 3 grandfinals, and the Dogs in the last couple of prelims. Money is only 1 factor.

You want a fair competition? Then reduce the number of teams in Melbourne. The Market is over saturated in victoria - and that needs to be address. Clubs shouldn't be getting hand outs, and trying to hold back other clubs while this exists.

Ahhhh, either accept inequality, mindless parochialism and financial slavery or die.

Brilliant solution, although I think i'm going to need some PR help when I table it at the next board election.

 

[_Mike_]

There are 2 schools of thought here

- Why should the AFL bail out struggling clubs at the expense of penalising the more profitable clubs ?

vs

- Yes the AFL should to ensure that the competition isnt ruined by having a reduced 8-10 team competition where only the financially strong and premiership successful clubs remain.

We're looking at football from a completely different perspective with the questions above. Treat AFL clubs as a business franchise and ask the same question. Why should my business be supporting another business that is struggling to stay afloat, that cant meet their budget and cant improve the sales.

If you're looking at it from a pure financial perspective then the answer is easy.. No.. The wealther franchises should not be forced to prop up the struggling corner stores.

The AFL is mainly responsible for the diminished financial viability of the competition. a Flood of expansions interstate has brought more teams to the competition and more fiercer/competetive drafting/trading. The shortfall of the expansion is that the market share for clubs becomes smaller, the pool of player selections is diminished by the priorities given to the new club starting the following year.

Clubs which have not been historically successful as the "big 4" of Victoria struggle even more to remain financially viable. With the lack of premiership success, the sales figues continue to dwell in the lower levels based on customer loyalty rather than new business.

Business grows on sales. In terms of AFL clubs, sales = merchandise & memberships. If your AFL club is successful with winning premierships, normally that boosts your membership & merchandising sales bringing more money to the clubs. With the bigger exposure to the market, you also attract bigger sponsorship dollars. A simple concept for anyone to understand.

The problem with a Australian Rules Football is that the Management has changed the dynamics of the competition to a business base. The AFL seem to be certain of their own business plans because we have heard Demetriou publically state that he/the AFL wants a 20 side competition.

By forcing the 6-8 struggling clubs out of the competition as mentioned by McGuire and co, where are the AFL going to find the rest to make up 20? The AFL wants to keep football a grass roots sport. To do that, they will have to keep propping up underperforming franchises.

This trend will continue for some time until the AFL realises that their business model is no longer financially viable.

Then what? Send the underperforming clubs to the VFL and have a 10 team AFL comp? In a business sense, it would probably work and be more financially viable to do so. The big problem with that is relying on the supporter base to follow that principle and spend their money elsewhere (i.e. on the better financially performing clubs rather than those struggling)

The first test is how well free agency works and what effect that will have on the underperforming clubs. We dont know yet.