"TV football: the price is $10m"

[Bluey]

So we see what Carlton and the MCC are on their soap box about:

"Carlton and the Melbourne Cricket Club are believed to want more than $10 million annually from the AFL in return for a promise to drop court proceedings against the league." - The Age 29/3/00

Money. Pure and simple.

 

[J.ELLIOT]

ITS NOT ABOUT MONEY YOU FOOL

ITS LOTS OF MONEY

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH


COUGH COUGH SPLUTTER AGGHHHHHHH SPIT

 

[Pessimistic]

There's more to this than meets the eye
It will all become clearer as time goes on

Take the comment from the AFL about 'melbourne clubs going to the wall' with a big grain of salt. When did they ever care about melbourne clubs.

The age report has that the MCG (Who have never said that melbourne clubs should go)would pay $1m each to Carlton Collingwood Richmond Hawthorn Melbourne and possily North from the $10m

This would come from projected TV revenue, not current AFL revenue as patrick smith states.
So which clubs are in danger ? That leaves the Colonial tenants (Essendon, St Kilda, Bulldogs, Geelong) who we are told will be at least $1m each better off at Colonial through charging their supporters much more for the same thing they got last year.

So who will be worse off ? It took only a few days from the 'Apology' to the Same old Bullshit from the AFL.

Note: I bought a copy of the record to see the word 'sorry' or 'apology'. I wasted my $2.50, It wasn't there. Who will say it first ? J Howard or W Jackson. Let's hope Wacko gets his marching orders about the same time GST John does. And Samuel too.

 

[Shinboners]

Following on from Pessimistic's comments, if the different parties are generating such large quantities of cash, who does, in the end, really deserve the money? Our money.

The clubs that make up the competition are just that, football clubs. They are run by the club administrators and the AFL, but for who? Themselves? The players? None of these. They should be running the clubs on behalf of the people that matter, the fans. The players/coaches/administrators come and go (and many of them will retire quite comfortably), but people like us are around forever. At North, I have no doubt that the people that run the club are trying their hardest to look after the interests of North's fans. I'm not so sure that the fans of other clubs quite feel the same way towards their own club administrations.

But there is a larger issue. For Greg Miller and co. to run the club, they need enough money to pay the players, administration, coaching, medical and support staff, the day-to-day running of the club, plus a little bit extra to put away just in case. Now, let's say that all these rights generate the cash and it turns out that North end up with excess cash at the end of the year. Is it really North's money? Or is it football's money?

Ultimately, while the clubs look after the fans, the clubs as a whole must also look after football. Any money that is generated beyond the requirements of each club (and the AFL as a whole) should be plouged back into the grassroots (junior, amateur and country footy) and for services to the fans (as opposed to the suits). Without strong roots, the kids will eventually turn to other sports.

Pessimistic might be able to correct me on this, but a large part of Hawthorn's financial troubles a few years ago was due to their administrators in the early 90s taking their fans for granted and indulging in Presidents lunches where the food/wine/service was heading towards the 5-star level. Looking after themselves instead of the lifeblood of the game. I smell the same rich odours coming from Big Jack and Eddie's corner.

 

[Arch]

without going thru the AFL's financial records, can anyone tell me what the current worth of TV rights are, to the AFL. (ie how much is Channel 7 paying).
also does anyone know how long the deal is for. i think we've all heard how the contract runs out next year, but how long is the TV contract generally drawn up for ?????? just out of interest......

(also- makes you sick that probably the wealthiest club is using gutter legal tactics to get more cash, which the AFL could easily spend on "needier" clubs).
i also hope phillip morris is ready to be served with an inevitable writ, when the old bastard elliot finally gets lung cancer.:-}


------------------
BOMBERS REIGN SUPREME.

[This message has been edited by Arch (edited 29 March 2000).]

 

[J.ELLIOT]

WHAT LUNGS ?


COUGH AGGGHHHHH SPIT

 

[Shinboners]

Arch

I'm not sure how much channel 7 paid for the TV rights, but there is also another twist. Channel 7 hold the rights to make the first AND last bids for the TV rights...yup...they get the chance to trump any bid from someone else. That, tied along with their studios being at Colonial, and not to mention Graeme Samuel being on the AFL commission AS WELL AS being MC of Spotless Services, and Eddie McGuire's multiple hats....it seems that if you want to be in the AFL, you NEED TO HAVE a conflict of interest somewhere.

 

[Dave]

Pess,
I'm paying pretty much the same as I paid this year - that is the reserved seat for a year is virtually the same price as last year. As I understand it Essendon has projected that the extra revenue it will receive will be from the ability to better service it's coterie club members - there wasn't enough space at the MCG to hold all the match day functions, as well as a better deal on sponsor signage. There aren't ripping the ordinary fans off at all. There are an extra 7000 seats (free I think) for Essendon members at all home games on top of the minimun 5000. Given the club has sold 20,000 reserved seats that pretty much caters for all the members. We also still play 4 home games at the 'g - wonder if we will we get 4/11th of a million from the MCC???? :0).

As for what the other clubs are doing I couldn't say.

I wouldn't be holding my breath for the AFL to cave in, as has been pointed out they would have to dig into their existing revenue to pay for it. Even if they did, what's the betting each of the MCG tennant clubs would find itself NOT receiving an annual divedend? Ouch.

Personally I hope Elliott loses. For one it's no good for the comp as a whole, and for another I think he (and the MCC) are wrong. The broadcast rights belong to the organisation putting on the show as without them there would be nothing to broadcast.

The stadiums can argue till they're blue in the face that they control access to the stadium but they're full of crap. Do they tell the league which fans can come in? No. And neither do they have the right to block the league's broadcasters IMO. It'd be like your landlord telling you as a tenant who you can and can't have visiting your place.

[This message has been edited by Dave (edited 29 March 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Dave (edited 29 March 2000).]

 

[Arch]

shin-man,
is spotless services that company that Mcmahon (EFC prez) mentioned on friday night footy the other week ???? the one which hooked up some deal with Clton, Clngwd, hawth and bulldogs i think ????? and to which EFC refused to join ???? if yes-
id be interested in doing a search of spotless to see who actually runs it. if your interested in the results let me know.

A.

 

[Shinboners]

Arch

I'm not too sure if McMahon had anything to do with Spotless Services (although I do have this vague memory that McMahon had some conflict of interest somewhere), but I'm sure that Samuel runs it.

I didn't hear McMahon talking about that deal involving Collingwood and those other clubs, but I'm assuming that it's the internet one that Eddie McGuire has his fingers in? On MMM, they grilled him about it and McGuire's only defence was that people had to take his word that "he'd never act improperly" Also, McGuire had apparantly threatened to sue Channel 7 if "The Game" didn't present the story to his liking.

The main thing that worries me is that all these people with multiple interests will make decisions that benefit themselves and their companies rather than football. With Samuel on the AFL commission AND running Spotless Services, that means that not only is he the one deciding the catering contracts as part of the AFL, he's also the one trying to get them as part of Spotless. The entire thing tastes as bad as the MCG food.

Let me know if you dig something up.

 

[Arch]

without knowing that much about ASX rules and the stockmarket, it appears that spotless is a VERY heavily "invested in" company.probably quite a few AFL fatties have their bucks in there huh ???
lol.
(more info when ive got time)
cya shin-man.

 

[Pessimistic]

All the same, you'd notice the glassy eyes among certain clubs when the AFL claims it is out to protect them. A bit like the Horse and Hound Hunters in england who breed foxes so they can pick them off one by one.

If we remember the Fitzroy saga there was lots of misinformation circulating until the Brisbane deal was delivered, which was what was wanted all along. But my point is if you wanted the timing of Fitzroy's demise, you only had to ask Port Adelaide when they had been told to be ready for (they were told to wait another year)

If you want to guage what's happening now, look at the 'promises' being made to Southport. Theyre being told not to spend money on their ground as they'll be playing out of the Gabba. Vic fans need to be vigilant as the wheels are in motion.

Rumours about 'gold coast hawks' etc make my blood boil. They shouldn't assume ther is no fight left in us as we're just itching for a fight, and this time we might aim alittle higher and bring down the commission. I for one won't relax till the whole lot of them is swept away.

(I should change my name to Paranoid)

 

[Arch]

shinboner-
another thing i was just thinking about:
I cant put my finger on it exactly but there is something fishy going on between Carlton (elliot), collingwood (mcguire) and channel 9 (packer). Ive heard that kerry packer has placed some huge bet on collingwood to win the flag (at huge odds of course), and that each collingwood player has been promised $1 million if they win it.
It makes me wonder whether mcguire and elliot are conspiring to screw the AFL with a legal battle and then place in jeopardy the upcoming TV rights negotiations with 7, to try and get Packer and channel 9 a better shot at getting those rights. y'know packer would love to have the AFL. (that thing about 7 having first and last bid kinda screws that theory a little, however...
like i say- i cant quite put my finger on it. but im sure these three are up to something dodgy. would do you reckon ??? does this make sense to you guys??????? i might sound paranoid- but its really becoming cloak and dagger stuff these days in the AFL.Wouldnt even surprise me if alan bond had a hand in all this . lol.

A.

 

[Jaffa]

Bloody hell Arch.

That $1m for each Collingwood player if they win the flag is just about the best rumour I've ever heard.

That's right out there.

 

[Arch]

unsubstantiated hearsay of course !!!!

 

[Shinboners]

Arch

After Packer's gem find on on his farm the other day, I think he could quite comfortably triple that reward money for the Pies should they win the flag.

I agree with you, there is something weird going on. Eddie works for channel 9 which is ultimately owned by Kerry Packer. Eddie, as a club president, would see and receive many internal AFL documents, especially those relating to the TV rights....who are his loyalties with? Collingwood FC? The AFL? Football? Or Packer?

 

[Pessimistic]

It's still very hypocritical of the AFL to claim it is out to 'protect' victorian clubs.

The fact that five clubs (two of which were in financial trouble recently, and experienced first hand the AFL's efforts to 'save' them) ar prepared to go head to head in court (or at least claim neutrality) demonstrates that the clubs are deeply suspicious of the AFL. Perhaps this has now come to roost.

People have mentioned the superleague wars. That may be the case but I think the main lesson learnt from that is that the NRL and super league administrators of the time had to go.

Jackson, Samuel MUST GO

Note how only three clubs have come out supporting the AFL in this. Bulldogs, Geelong and Sydney. All financially so dependent on AFL 'favours' (for one reason or another) that they have to support them.

PS I believe ALL clubs should survive in their current form. If they want teams in QLD and NSW, let them expand the league.

 

[Dave]

Pess,
there have been more then just the three you've mentioned. Whilst I would like to see Carlton lose I am quite concerned at the influence Ch7 seem to have on the game. Look at last Sunday, a game on in prime time featuring a popular melbourne club and what do we have? A movie. We also have mutterings about shortening the game as fans can't stay attentive for 120 minutes. What crap. It's so Ch &'s telecast fits neatly into 2 hours WITH add breaks. They have WAY too much influence.

 

[Arch]

yup- dead right shin-man. it'll be interesting to see where it ends up, but theres TOO wierd a connection between these 3. i also get jittery when i see guys like steve vizard whispering into elliots ear at the back of press conferences.
anyway- we'll have to watch this space huh ??????

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

Dave you have a point regarding the undue and unhealthy influence Cahnnel 7 have on the game at the moment.

Channel 7 want to have their cake and eat it too - they want the rights to broadcast the footy so much they have paid the AFL a fortune just to have the first and last bid (which should neatly trump Channel 9) - but just HOW committed are Channel 7 to the footy ?

They want to stuff around with the length of games to fit them in with their scheduling for a start, also the TV Network consistently refuses to broadcast games into Brisbane and Sydney during reasonable hours (no Mr Stokes you twit - 11.45pm is not a reasonable hour)and now the same thing is happening down south, Footy is being replaced by movies, or even worse American TV shows of average quality.

What the hell is going on here ?

Times are changing, and Channel 7, along with the other networks, are chasing a new audience that is young, cashed-up, feminine and not interested in footy.

This new audience is more interested in watching shows like Friends or Ally McBeal or even Buffy the freakking Vampire Slayer (for chrissake) they don't watch footy and the TV Networks realise that screening shows that appeal to a younger, more affluent and feminine market will attract the bigger advertising dollar.

Where does this leave footy ?

Well quite simply if you cannot afford Pay TV then you won't see it on free to air, simple as that.

Did anyone know that Channel 7 also has the rights to the local Soccer competition ? - wouldn't know because they never telecast the games and thousands of Soccer fans all over Australia are absolutely ropeable about it.

Channel 7 will probably end up with the rights when all the dust settles but footy will inevitably disappear from free-to-air - probably no matter who ends up with the rights.

 

[RICE80]

Guys the company run by Vizard and McGuire is Spotsview, check them out at www.sportsview.com.au Spotless is the catering company run by Ron Evans.

Elliott has a point as far as against the gate broadcasts go, but he goes about things the wrong way. He along with all the other presidents signed the agreement for the C7 rites, so he should shut up until the next round of negotiations not in the middle of the contract.

I believe you have to have the AFL negotiating tv and internet rites on all the clubs behalf, other wise it will be chaos. What are those clubs with sportscene signing 10 year contracts for, the internet changes weekly, what will it be like in ten years?

Elliott also shits me with his self appointment as the savior of the ordinary supporter. You only have to hear CFC's new radio ad to know they don't give a stuff about their supporters, it goes like this - "Carlton & Collingwood played in front of a crowd of over 80,000 at their last meeting. So in order to guarantee entry to the round 17 clash make sure you reserve your seat at Optus for 2000 today." Makes perfect sense now that they don't want to move it.

I know channel 7 are stuffing up footy coverage, Ess v Freo game was bizarre, why play it at that time Sunday if you're not going to play it live? Channel 9 are just as bad at showing Rugby down here in Melb (not that I give a stuff). So I don't see them as the solution. It pisses me off that in order to see all the footy now you have to have pay tv.

BOMBER BLITZ IN 2000! and go Bullies this weekend!

 

[Jaffa]

It's obvious that Carlton are too scared to take on Collingwood at the MCG again.

Go Pies.

 

[bluegirl24021972]

Rice80, I agree with a lot of what you had to say, especially your second paragraph about live against the gate, but a contract is a contract, etc.

I can see why so many people are irritated by, and even hate Elliott. I must admit that whilst he makes me cringe on occasion, I also have a hearty respect for the man. He never ceases to look for ways to improve the club and sometimes even the game. His job is President of the Carlton Football Club, so he is really only doing his job by pursuing benefits for the club.

However, so many things about this whole debate have me deeply concerned. I really feel for the fans who feel that their clubs are threatened.

However two points about the AFL have me very concerned:-

1 They appear to be using Carlton as a scapegoat for endangering the threatened Victorian clubs - yet we've been hearing for months, if not years, about how the AFL wanted 2 less teams in Victoria.

2 The AFL appears to be slowly, but very steadily building a dictatorship in which they hold all of the power. Carlton seems to be the only club in Victoria which has a bargaining option AT THIS STAGE, and I have no doubts that if other clubs in Vic had a bargaining option, they would most likely be attempting to use it to their own advantage too. But that's what the AFL doesn't want - it wants all the power and with that comes all the control of the money. And with all that money & power, it's only a matter of time before it's a prime breeding ground for corruption.

As far as I'm concerned, I hope & wish that all 16 teams continue to compete in a healthy competition with huge crowds (because that's part of footy culture & adds to the atmosphere of the game), and that it is no longer overshadowed with all this litigation crap. The sooner I can get back to enjoying the footy THE BETTER.

Go Blues in 2000, 2001 on onwards!!

 

[Shinboners]

Now things are getting ugly. On radio this morning (and apparantly in an article in the Herald-Sun), the AFL are threatening to take away premiership points from Carlton, ban them from the draft, and not pay out TV dividends. It seems to me that Carlton have found a legal loophole.

 

[Pessimistic]

There is more support out there for Elliot than first thought.

I believe it's a direct result of the pathetically low esteem the AFL Heirarchy have 'fostered' among clubs and the community in victoria

If they had acted with integrity in recent years then perhaps the other 15 clubs would be wholehartedly behind them. You reap what you sow.

Martin Flanagan suggested the State Government step in and sort it out. I agree. The Kennet government did a similar thing with the MCG trust. I was sceptical at the time but at least the MCG seems to be getting more responsive and competitive.

PS Not that I believe John Elliot neccesarily has the interests of 'smaller' clubs at heart.

Let me finish with a little known fact. The Great manchester united has been bailed out by the local council on at least two occasions. All clubs have 'lean patches', but they have a right to survive. Lose a club (even by re-location) and you lose 1/12th of what you had. Can Aussie rules really afford that ?