Tas
Premium Platinum
Veteran
10k Posts
30k Posts
North Melbourne - 2022 Kaitlyn Ashmore and Aileen Gilroy Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2022 Aaron Hall and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
North Melbourne AFLW - 2021 Aileen Gilroy and Kaitlyn Ashmore Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2021 Taylor Garner and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
TheBrownDog
- Dec 23, 2002
- 62,054
- 60,118
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- There can be only one...
While I like Eddie thinking outside the box but it annoys me when this type of thing comes up for a few reasons:
- North Melbourne members won't vote for it. This is probably the number one reason why I can't see a plan like this getting off the ground.
This is the major issue everyone who comes up with us fails to take into consideration.
a) We wont vote for it.
b) AFL doesn't have the power to force us to relocate.
c) We aren't under any financial pressure, we have no debt and made a "profit" even during covid no crowds period.
d) The new stadium post AFL acquisition deal is a lot more favourable to clubs.
e) Other clubs are in a worse financial position than us and they are not under any pressure.
f) membership based increased despite winning the spoon and people expecting a tough rebuild.
g) AFL retains far too much of the broadcasting rights, we get $946m for 2023 and 2024, $473m per year. Broadcasting rights is 50% of the AFL revenue, they should run the competition with the 50% non broadcasting revenue and return all the broadcasting revenue to the clubs, that would be $26.27m, per club, per year. That would lead to higher salaries for players, clubs retaining bigger profits and have more scope for well paid assistants and money to spend on more community programs. We get about half of that.
Fox estimated the 10 year AFL distributions between 2012-2021 to be:
GWS $203m
GC $198m
Brisbane $160m
St Kilda $156m
Bulldogs $139m
North $134m
The top 4 only received $93-96m. Everyone is getting screwed in the current scenario, Whilst the teams who currently get a lot less from the AFL directly, they are often generating a significant amount thanks to a contrived system of inequitable access to FTA time slots which over a long period of time helps to promote support base growth, advertising and sponsorship revenue, etc. This isn't how other major sports are handled around the world.
AFL policy is to move away from cycles of boom and bust, they know it is more desirable to have any given team being able to win, it draws larger crowds, it generates more viewers but the current free agency system makes it easier to lose players as a struggling club and harder to acquire good quality players at the same time the AFL forces clubs to spend all their salary cap every year and expect a team to spend the same amount on assistants when their list is full of kids who need development as clubs who have mature teams that don't need as much development work.
IF Tasmania is economically viable with their own team then awesome, give them a license if it wont impact the existing clubs. But, the Tasmanian government should underwrite them that they will make up the shortfall between what they project and what become actual takings because the batshit metrics the AFL pushed to justify GWS and GC were pure fantasy and the rest of the clubs are footing that bill now.
We are doing fine, everyone who isn't a member should piss off and stop telling us what we should do, if you want to sell off your own clubs then have at it. All we want to see is the AFL to distribute all the broadcasting revenue equally to all the clubs, then they can get rid of this loaded system of handouts which they use to be able to manipulate clubs and force them to put up with unfair access to the FTA market which impacts all aspects of the commercial business.
Last edited: