What tangible onfield benefit do big rich clubs get from being big and rich these days?

Remove this Banner Ad

Feb 17, 2010
6,391
12,480
adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
They get an advantage with the fixturing in certain cases.

When there is situations where some of the big clubs haven’t played at certain grounds for 5/10/15 year periods then that needs to be addressed.

As exemplified by Essendon not having to travel to Geelong for decades before this year. The big clubs don’t get scheduled to play at the “boutique” stadiums. Instead, they play them play at the G or larger stadiums under the disguise of drawing bigger crowds (which isn’t always the case) and doesn’t justify going years and years never playing at certain grounds.

In the case of playing at GMHBA, then the other “smaller” clubs are left to make up the Cats required home games and in turn, suffer a disadvantage compared to the big clubs who never have too.

Same goes for Ballarat, Tassi, Alice springs, Canberra etc.
 
Big rich clubs don't need to sell games to Tassie to get by.
No s**t. Now explain how not selling home games helps on-field performance, keeping in mind there's a fairly strong case that Hawthorn and North Melbourne's win-loss column has been helped by home games in Tasmania.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

May 30, 2006
17,525
10,295
Canberra
AFL Club
North Melbourne
The advantages may not be all that of themselves, but add up to quite a bit. It probably largely applies to Vic clubs, non-Vic clubs have their own markets for exploiting sponsors and media. Even then a West Coast player probably has more opportunity than a Fremantle player of similar stature within the respective clubs.

The "out of cap" income players can earn, through the coterie groups and whatever is not small.
The difference in media demand could be significant, the #4 player at Collingwood could get a much better media deal than the #1 player at North or St Kilda - assuming all teams are roughly equal on performance. A truly standout personality or superstar might subvert that in the short term (but a big club player is more likely to be built by media into a superstar anyway).

Essendon get guaranteed MCG games despite being a Docklands tenant. They will never go into a final at the MCG hosting a non-Vic who has more recent experience with the venue. The downside is they will never get a true home game against another large club, but they play enough MCG games that home or away are basically neutral there. Whenever Carlton come competitive, the same will be true of them - if they are still a largish club by that point.

I'm sure a lot of spending on facilities, consulting, etc, is outside the football department cap.

When was the last time a big club was scheduled to do back-to-back travel involving Perth? (COVID broke the schedules a bit, but in the original fixture. Small clubs don't get looked after like that.) Back when Richmond were trash they did get back-to-back travel a couple of times, but I don't think Brisbane or Perth were in there.
 

blueboy25

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 14, 2006
8,406
11,188
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
West Perth, Tottenham
The advantages may not be all that of themselves, but add up to quite a bit. It probably largely applies to Vic clubs, non-Vic clubs have their own markets for exploiting sponsors and media. Even then a West Coast player probably has more opportunity than a Fremantle player of similar stature within the respective clubs.

The "out of cap" income players can earn, through the coterie groups and whatever is not small.
The difference in media demand could be significant, the #4 player at Collingwood could get a much better media deal than the #1 player at North or St Kilda - assuming all teams are roughly equal on performance. A truly standout personality or superstar might subvert that in the short term (but a big club player is more likely to be built by media into a superstar anyway).

Essendon get guaranteed MCG games despite being a Docklands tenant. They will never go into a final at the MCG hosting a non-Vic who has more recent experience with the venue. The downside is they will never get a true home game against another large club, but they play enough MCG games that home or away are basically neutral there. Whenever Carlton come competitive, the same will be true of them - if they are still a largish club by that point.

I'm sure a lot of spending on facilities, consulting, etc, is outside the football department cap.

When was the last time a big club was scheduled to do back-to-back travel involving Perth? (COVID broke the schedules a bit, but in the original fixture. Small clubs don't get looked after like that.) Back when Richmond were trash they did get back-to-back travel a couple of times, but I don't think Brisbane or Perth were in there.
80,000 members not enough for you
 

sprockets

Cancelled
Crime Board Sleuth BeanCoiNFT Investor
Oct 15, 2004
5,562
9,546
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
Essendon's planned upgrade to Windy Hill uses the same model as the Dogs and North have used/are using to get the Western Oval and Arden Street upgraded.

Leverage community links/access and the AFLW team for a major injection of taxpayer funds.

Which begs the question as to what real competitive advantage big rich clubs have over the smaller clubs now.

The days of Essendon/West Coast/Hawthorn being able to afford world class training facilities while smaller clubs had portables or used uni gyms and the like are long gone.

The footy department soft cap brought the heat out of the arms race there and the AFL used COVID spending cuts to cement in the equalisation.

It looks like the real competitive advantages are with clubs that can offer lifestyle and cultural benefits.

Geelong benefits massively from its location and the associated lifestyle. Brisbane has done very well in building a culture that players want to come to and/or not leave. GWS have rapidly built a strong culture that allows them to keep players they want and attract talent too.

Has footy's equalisation mechanism - and associated political/cultural factors like teams working out they can use W to squeeze taxpayers for cash - finally reached its goal where richer clubs don't actually get any tangible onfield advantage from their cash?
Hire better lawyers?
 
Jun 14, 2015
17,459
38,152
In a house with a sausage dog Trevor
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Port Adelaide Power
There's a fairly strong case that Hawthorn and North Melbourne's win-loss column has been helped by home games in Tasmania.
This is true. Flying interstate is a massive competitive advantage IMO and the added travel is massive for both Hawthorn and North Melbourne.
 
This is true. Flying interstate is a massive competitive advantage IMO and the added travel is massive for both Hawthorn and North Melbourne.
"Added travel" is pretty vague.

Flying a short distance to play a home game against West Coast etc, who therefore have to add time to their trip as well, is one thing.

It's not exactly the same as selling a home game to the Gabba and playing that match against Brisbane, is it.
 
Jun 14, 2015
17,459
38,152
In a house with a sausage dog Trevor
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Port Adelaide Power
It must be great not having the added stress of playing blockbuster games too.

Also both Friday and Saturday nights are a really good time to go out and party and catch up with mates. It's always a real drag when your team is playing and you can't see them live because some selfish non-AFL fan is having a birthday party. I've missed many games because of social engagements and it really sucks. I guess if I barracked for North that wouldn't be an issue, the players must love it too, Sunday 4pm nothing else is on so moyaswell kick a footy around or watch TV.
 

dave10

Premiership Player
Apr 26, 2004
4,282
3,464
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Essendon's planned upgrade to Windy Hill uses the same model as the Dogs and North have used/are using to get the Western Oval and Arden Street upgraded.

Leverage community links/access and the AFLW team for a major injection of taxpayer funds.

Which begs the question as to what real competitive advantage big rich clubs have over the smaller clubs now.

The days of Essendon/West Coast/Hawthorn being able to afford world class training facilities while smaller clubs had portables or used uni gyms and the like are long gone.

The footy department soft cap brought the heat out of the arms race there and the AFL used COVID spending cuts to cement in the equalisation.

It looks like the real competitive advantages are with clubs that can offer lifestyle and cultural benefits.

Geelong benefits massively from its location and the associated lifestyle. Brisbane has done very well in building a culture that players want to come to and/or not leave. GWS have rapidly built a strong culture that allows them to keep players they want and attract talent too.

Has footy's equalisation mechanism - and associated political/cultural factors like teams working out they can use W to squeeze taxpayers for cash - finally reached its goal where richer clubs don't actually get any tangible onfield advantage from their cash?
Good topic and post.

I think there’s limited but tangible benefits still. There’s no doubt Essendon has been able to win the race to secure free agents with its blockbuster games, big crowds and to a lesser degree, perceived superior facilities. The fact Essendon hadn’t converted this to onfield success is less about the players attracted and more about years of chronic performance culture failings and scandals.

They also have greater access to industry contacts and opportunities for door openings via more sponsors and stringer coterie groups (Eg: Essendon).

I think the partisan crowd the large clubs draw has a material impact as well. Essendon invariably fill Marvel creating a somewhat imposing prospect for opposition clubs. Just as the big clubs do at the MCG. Essendon’s partisan crowd in Tassie earlier this year was reported by players on both sides as an eye opener and possibly helped drag Essendon over the line in a tight contest against the Hawks. We know home crowds have a big impact on umpiring decisions and home team energy in WA and SA..
 

Handsome.B.Wonderful

Premiership Player
Jan 13, 2006
3,560
6,423
Bigfooty
AFL Club
North Melbourne
One benefit is not being like North Melbourne desperately trying and failing to attract free agents and recruits every year :$

Difference between North and Melbourne is when we win a flag we take it back to our traditional home base and lift it in front of our fans.

We don’t have to bastard up a “regional tour” of local sports bars, shopping centres and plazas to make up for the fact that we don’t even have a footy club facility.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

My Tilly

Premium Gold
Jun 30, 2018
9,817
11,851
AFL Club
Geelong
Geelong have a terrific real estate system in place.
We certainly don't pay our players the ridiculous amounts like most others do, but we set them up in nice homes on big acreage for a quarter of the price ;)
 
If what are you are saying is true, the single best thing about it will be that West Coast will be the most impacted. I look forward to them accepting that loss of privilege with grace and equanimity..

I have a memory of West Coast actually complaining on this very point - as in, well why do we go to the bother of generating all this revenue if we can't actually use it for tangible onfield benefit.
 
Big rich clubs don't need to sell games to Tassie to get by.

Hawthorn still sells as many games to Tassie as North.

So obviously has nothing to do with it.

Carlton have turned their financial status around hugely, but are still very poor onfield and cycle through coaches with depressing predictability.

What tangible onfield benefit do the Blues get from the improved financial position?
 
They get an advantage with the fixturing in certain cases.

When there is situations where some of the big clubs haven’t played at certain grounds for 5/10/15 year periods then that needs to be addressed.

As exemplified by Essendon not having to travel to Geelong for decades before this year. The big clubs don’t get scheduled to play at the “boutique” stadiums. Instead, they play them play at the G or larger stadiums under the disguise of drawing bigger crowds (which isn’t always the case) and doesn’t justify going years and years never playing at certain grounds.

In the case of playing at GMHBA, then the other “smaller” clubs are left to make up the Cats required home games and in turn, suffer a disadvantage compared to the big clubs who never have too.

Same goes for Ballarat, Tassi, Alice springs, Canberra etc.

Yes, very true.

Bigger/richer Melbourne clubs get this benefit.

But West Coast don't. So its not universal of big rich clubs, just a few in Melbourne.

Indeed, North have tried to sell West Coast a home game on multiple occasions and the AFL have knocked it back.
 
Some big clubs are so big, they like to pay for their former players to play at other clubs.

Heh you jest but there's a really serious point here.

Surely with all their money Collingwood could afford someone capable of keeping their salary cap alive and breathing.
 
Good topic and post.

I think there’s limited but tangible benefits still. There’s no doubt Essendon has been able to win the race to secure free agents with its blockbuster games, big crowds and to a lesser degree, perceived superior facilities. The fact Essendon hadn’t converted this to onfield success is less about the players attracted and more about years of chronic performance culture failings and scandals.

Agree on the attracting free agents. As owen87 has identified Essendon do seem to have really created a market advantage by using Andrew Welsh and others to provide a post footy career pathway.

Dodoro has been very smart in this. It is what clubs need to do. Essendon doesn't have the go home and live down the coast pull of Geelong so have created a very astute point of difference in the recruiting market.

They also have greater access to industry contacts and opportunities for door openings via more sponsors and stringer coterie groups (Eg: Essendon).

Sure agreed, but again, its a matter of degrees. It isn't like Essendon/Hawthorn have those things and other clubs don't, black and white. Or the disparity is like Essendon training out of world class facilities while other use portables.

As discussed above, I reckon the Bombers have realised they need to polish that advantage to make it really pay off, which they've done very well.

Big powerful cotorie groups are also a double edged sword, as Carlton and Collingwood are still struggling with, and Essendon had real issues with in the earlier part of last decade.

But overall agree.


I think the partisan crowd the large clubs draw has a material impact as well. Essendon invariably fill Marvel creating a somewhat imposing prospect for opposition clubs. Just as the big clubs do at the MCG. Essendon’s partisan crowd in Tassie earlier this year was reported by players on both sides as an eye opener and possibly helped drag Essendon over the line in a tight contest against the Hawks. We know home crowds have a big impact on umpiring decisions and home team energy in WA and SA..

Hard agree on all this, and the Tassie point is especially well made. But the crowd size/power thing is also not set in stone.

The Dees were the powerful club in the land from the start of the game (literally) until they dropped off in the 60s and spiralled all the way down to near death experiences in the 00s.

I suspect a major Dees resurgence and shift a la Hawthorn into big/power club with crowds to match and associated onfield advantage via fixturing/noise of affirmation is happening before our eyes.
 
Last edited:

dave10

Premiership Player
Apr 26, 2004
4,282
3,464
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Agree on the attracting free agents. As owen87 has identified Essendon do seem to have really created a market advantage by using Andrew Welsh and others to provide a post footy career pathway.

Dodoro has been very smart in this. It is what clubs need to do. Essendon doesn't have the go home and live down the coast pull of Geelong so have created a very astute point of difference in the recruiting market.



Sure agreed, but again, its a matter of degrees. It isn't like Essendon/Hawthorn have those things and other clubs don't, black and white. Or the disparity is like Essendon training out of world class facilities while other use portables.

As discussed above, I reckon the Bombers have realised they need to polish that advantage to make it really pay off, which they've done very well.

Big powerful cotorie groups are also a double edged sword, as Carlton and Collingwood are still struggling with, and Essendon had real issues with in the earlier part of last decade.

But overall agree.




Hard agree on all this, and the Tassie point is especially well made. But the crowd size/power thing is also not set in stone.

The Dees were the powerful club in the land from the start of the game (literally) until they dropped off in the 60s and spiralled all the way down to near death experiences in the 00s.

I suspect a major Dees resurgence and shift a la Hawthorn into big/power club with crowds to match and associated onfield advantage via fixturing/noise of affirmation is happening before our eyes.
Well said and argued. I largely agree. A sensible and pragmatic viewpoint.
 
Well said and argued. I largely agree. A sensible and pragmatic viewpoint.

It is amazing how successful equalisation has been.

In 1998 Pagan and Sheeds would both use the clear and undeniable difference in facilities in the clubs as motivation - "You have the best facilities in the land and you get beaten by a bunch of blokes training in portable v our weights as just as heavy as theirs."

But then there's no doubt whatsoever North's crap facilities and finances held us back and took a decade or more of work to allow us to get back to equalish footing. The soft cap was huge in that, and so to his credit was Brad Scott.

But if you took the last five years as your reference point, the Dogs are likely second only to the Tigs in terms of relative improvement on and off field.

Dogs are debt free, revenue rising steadily (COVID notwithstanding), they've got/are getting their home ground done up to be broadcast industry leading standard for W, they can attract big name players and keep the blokes they want to, they've got one of the most marketable players in the game with Bont.

Over the last five years in that regard, the Dogs are a classic Big Club - flag and GF appearances to match.

Yet Collingwood have done the complete opposite.

They're a mismanaged rabble who are sinking onfield, shedding talented players and never really in the hunt for big name free agents.

Even within the cycle of footy, being a big rich club provides them precious little onfield advantage I can see, beyond the blockbusters that are a pre-equalisation legacy thing.
 
Apr 13, 2006
32,868
77,034
The Bitter End
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
The Victorian State Governement props up all the Victorian Teams and the AFL as they pump money into their "Sporting Capital" Strategy and over invest in football infrastructure. AFLW has given them further impetus to dissproportiately invest in AFL infrastucture in the interests of womens sport as well as being masked as "community" initiatives. The AFL is the Opiate to the masses in Victoria so there isn't too much vocal opposition to the massive state sponsored funding of what is essentially a private sporting body. In turn favour is given to all the Vic clubs but the return on investment comes from things like the terribly corrupt MCG Contract, and obviously the ROI is greater from the bigger Vic Clubs, so they get the advantage of exposure which gives them better opportunities from the Private sector. That is the advantage the bigger clubs have, but as the Vic Government invests heavily in the "Footy Industry" so no clubs miss out on facilities etc and probably no will go under because of this.
 

dave10

Premiership Player
Apr 26, 2004
4,282
3,464
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
It is amazing how successful equalisation has been.

In 1998 Pagan and Sheeds would both use the clear and undeniable difference in facilities in the clubs as motivation - "You have the best facilities in the land and you get beaten by a bunch of blokes training in portable v our weights as just as heavy as theirs."

But then there's no doubt whatsoever North's crap facilities and finances held us back and took a decade or more of work to allow us to get back to equalish footing. The soft cap was huge in that, and so to his credit was Brad Scott.

But if you took the last five years as your reference point, the Dogs are likely second only to the Tigs in terms of relative improvement on and off field.

Dogs are debt free, revenue rising steadily (COVID notwithstanding), they've got/are getting their home ground done up to be broadcast industry leading standard for W, they can attract big name players and keep the blokes they want to, they've got one of the most marketable players in the game with Bont.

Over the last five years in that regard, the Dogs are a classic Big Club - flag and GF appearances to match.

Yet Collingwood have done the complete opposite.

They're a mismanaged rabble who are sinking onfield, shedding talented players and never really in the hunt for big name free agents.

Even within the cycle of footy, being a big rich club provides them precious little onfield advantage I can see, beyond the blockbusters that are a pre-equalisation legacy thing.
Collingwood are fascinating. There’s the genuine possibility it will have the lowest membership of the ‘Big 4’ in 2022. And there’s no reason why it should given Carlton and Essendon have underperformed Vs Collingwood for over 10 years now.

Carlton are building on field and will benefit somewhat from their ‘freebies’ of 2031 to record more membership growth. Essendon are entering a period of likely sustained success and its tracking strongly Vs last year in its 2022 membership campaign.

Both Carlton and Essendon could surpass 85,000 in 2022. Not necessarily the case with Collingwood.

I think it’s probably decades since this phenomenon has been realised… And Essendon don’t have 2-3,000 AFLW members to prop up its overall total like almost all other AFL clubs do.

To your point, there’s been a degree of mediocrity about the Pies the last 3-5 years off field. Certainly the last 2-3 years anyway. New leadership at Collingwood have work to do to restore its preeminence as the leading club in the AFL. Something Richmond and West Coast currently own, with Essendon and Collingwood obvious challengers perhaps finally emerging to topple these two current beasts.
 
To your point, there’s been a degree of mediocrity about the Pies the last 3-5 years off field. Certainly the last 2-3 years anyway. New leadership at Collingwood have work to do to restore its preeminence as the leading club in the AFL. Something Richmond and West Coast currently own, with Essendon and Collingwood obvious challengers perhaps finally emerging to topple these two current beasts.

Agree on all, but say Collingwood DO fight back to take the Biggest Club mantle, what tangible onfield benefit do it get them?

Reckon the two clubs to beat in the next couple of years will be Dogs and Dees.

Both small Melbourne clubs.

Can see next few GFs featuring one or both.

That's a direct result of equalisation meaning being big and rich alone doesn't actually deliver that much.

Being SMART is what counts most now for clubs imo - again, that great example about Essendon actually sharpening up their cotorie advantage into something tangible that a manager will take to the player and say yep, the Bombers are the best fit for your Football Journey.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back