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

Remove this Banner Ad

Jack Green

Team Captain
Feb 14, 2018
329
245
AFL Club
St Kilda
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.
All good points . The obvious un-disputable fact is clubs cannot directly leverage their financial resources into obtaining a stronger playing list. To have the best chance of success however good admin and management is important and a united well run club a must. Case in point, 3 of the most wealthy financial and membership clubs West Coast, Collingwood and Hawthorn I now see as having some years in the doldrums. And also agreed on the Dees and Dogs being flag chances the next few years. The days of buying flags like North in the mid 70's or Carlton in the mid 80's are long gone. You could say with some justification the equalisation policies in place in the AFL are certainly a success!
 

Jack Green

Team Captain
Feb 14, 2018
329
245
AFL Club
St Kilda
Ha, you’re telling the story. News to me.
Kennett did say in late August in a letter to members "Dingley is going ahead with soil being delivered as we speak." Last 2-3 months though there have been some interesting developments at the club. Suspect , but not sure if Kennett goes, there may be a re- assessment at the very least.
 

SimpkinByTheDockOfTheBay

Seasoned Football Analyst
Aug 21, 2018
21,284
51,928
AFL Club
North Melbourne
All good points . The obvious un-disputable fact is clubs cannot directly leverage their financial resources into obtaining a stronger playing list. To have the best chance of success however good admin and management is important and a united well run club a must. Case in point, 3 of the most wealthy financial and membership clubs West Coast, Collingwood and Hawthorn I now see as having some years in the doldrums. And also agreed on the Dees and Dogs being flag chances the next few years. The days of buying flags like North in the mid 70's or Carlton in the mid 80's are long gone. You could say with some justification the equalisation policies in place in the AFL are certainly a success!
Carlton have not been anything remotely like successful since equalisation started kicking in.

They've fallen the furthest of all the big clubs.

Almost like they're institutionally incapable of operating in the new order.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Kwality

Hall of Famer
Aug 14, 2011
35,347
13,225
Trafalgar
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Mclaren Mercedes F1
I was thinking that, but surely folks understand that ALL clubs have wealthy supporters, that's actually got nothing to do with the point.

The point is more clubs themselves. Like, what's the point of piling up cash these days when the league is structured in such a way that you can't actually spend it for any tangible benefit (I can see).
The Eagles pump $millions back into local footy, & the whole comp share that bonanza on draft day.
 

Kwality

Hall of Famer
Aug 14, 2011
35,347
13,225
Trafalgar
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Mclaren Mercedes F1

dave10

Club Legend
Apr 26, 2004
2,940
1,924
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
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.
The tangible benefits are limited. I think we agree there are benefits from being a big club however few aspects can be capitalised on for onfield gain, being crowd partisan support, contacts and coteries (trades) being most prominent. Having said that, to realise benefits the club needs to be functioning well broadly, pound for pound with the competitive set.
 

Jack Green

Team Captain
Feb 14, 2018
329
245
AFL Club
St Kilda
Not forgetting the multi $million donation by a club member for the facility:
On this general $. Some Hawk members can possibly help with this one, but I know my Hawker mates for years have said the club has been very pro-active in regards to wills and inheritance . Don't know if this is solely a Hawthorn thing mind you.
 

Guardian Hawk

Premiership Player
Oct 16, 2003
3,789
5,609
Murrumbeena
AFL Club
Hawthorn

This burned into my mind.

I see now its back on track, but again largely using the same small club model as North and the Dogs etc.

My point holds (imo lol)
Hawthorn has the financial capacity to pay for Dingley independently but if you can get co-contributions from the Govt, etc then why wouldn't you?

It's like if you can afford to pay for a house without using the first home buyer's grant, would you not claim the grant? Of course you would. Or if you can afford the 35% tax on all of your income, would you not bother claiming deductions? No, every wealthy person I know claims all of their deductions (and many use additional tax dodges on top).

This has nothing to do with ability to afford or 'small club' mindset and is simply about maximising the value of the dollars you do have (which is how you get wealthy -as a club or individual - in the first place)

IN answer to your question though, no, there is no tangibly significant benefit in being a rich club anymore. In fact, a good chunk of the money Hawthorn makes gets redistributed to other clubs anyway.

The only real benefit is that you are "future-proofing" and helping ensure the survival of your club. At the moment, the AFL wants all of the current teams in the comp. If that were to change in the future, clubs that are big/rich and making money will not be "fitzroy'd" whilst smaller/poorer clubs will be vulnerable if the AFL unplugs the lifeline. Being financially independent and having financial clout is a key factor in navigating bad times (such as pandemics, changes in AFL agenda, etc).
 

Jack Green

Team Captain
Feb 14, 2018
329
245
AFL Club
St Kilda
Hawthorn has the financial capacity to pay for Dingley independently but if you can get co-contributions from the Govt, etc then why wouldn't you?

It's like if you can afford to pay for a house without using the first home buyer's grant, would you not claim the grant? Of course you would. Or if you can afford the 35% tax on all of your income, would you not bother claiming deductions? No, every wealthy person I know claims all of their deductions (and many use additional tax dodges on top).

This has nothing to do with ability to afford or 'small club' mindset and is simply about maximising the value of the dollars you do have (which is how you get wealthy -as a club or individual - in the first place)

IN answer to your question though, no, there is no tangibly significant benefit in being a rich club anymore. In fact, a good chunk of the money Hawthorn makes gets redistributed to other clubs anyway.

The only real benefit is that you are "future-proofing" and helping ensure the survival of your club. At the moment, the AFL wants all of the current teams in the comp. If that were to change in the future, clubs that are big/rich and making money will not be "fitzroy'd" whilst smaller/poorer clubs will be vulnerable if the AFL unplugs the lifeline. Being financially independent and having financial clout is a key factor in navigating bad times (such as pandemics, changes in AFL agenda, etc).
Yes the Fitzroy days [ which was a disgrace] appear to be over. Your current President had a different perspective, but his days, let alone his views, appear to be numbered .
 

SimpkinByTheDockOfTheBay

Seasoned Football Analyst
Aug 21, 2018
21,284
51,928
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Hawthorn has the financial capacity to pay for Dingley independently but if you can get co-contributions from the Govt, etc then why wouldn't you?
I would argue that Hawthorn have been caught on the hop by the change in AFL cultural and economic winds.

Yes they could pay for it on the model that Essendon paid for their industry leading training facility back in the 90s, or West Coast did recently.

But Hawthorn massively dropped the ball on W. The missed opportunities there have been huge.

Kennett was sooking about it before the licence announce was made and he was right - that's where sponsors especially want to see action.

Now Hawthorn are following the established community/W model that gets taxpayer support because they have to in many regards.

IN answer to your question though, no, there is no tangibly significant benefit in being a rich club anymore. In fact, a good chunk of the money Hawthorn makes gets redistributed to other clubs anyway.

The only real benefit is that you are "future-proofing" and helping ensure the survival of your club. At the moment, the AFL wants all of the current teams in the comp. If that were to change in the future, clubs that are big/rich and making money will not be "fitzroy'd" whilst smaller/poorer clubs will be vulnerable if the AFL unplugs the lifeline. Being financially independent and having financial clout is a key factor in navigating bad times (such as pandemics, changes in AFL agenda, etc).
Yep, all very true.
 

Guardian Hawk

Premiership Player
Oct 16, 2003
3,789
5,609
Murrumbeena
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Not being argumentative or having a shot, how is that done? All clubs provide the comp that the AFL monetises.
This was worded quite poorly. What I mean to say is that whilst clubs were once distributed revenue (from TV rights, etc) quite evenly (despite some clubs being far more profitable for the AFL), the distribution model now is that some clubs get a minimal percentage (West Coast the least, Hawthorn second least most years) whilst others get a far greater proportion of revenue. This negates the benefits of being a club that manages its finances well as parity is restored through inequal distribution by the AFL. This is set to be exaggerated further with another $36M redistribution plan (where 5 clubs lose money earmarked for them and it gets given to the poorer clubs instead).

Combined with the soft cap, this indeed removes much of the benefit of being a wealthy club, in answer to the OP
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

SimpkinByTheDockOfTheBay

Seasoned Football Analyst
Aug 21, 2018
21,284
51,928
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Just need to relocate to a marginal seat,

If the AFL decide to place a team in Eden-Manaro you would have a 40,000 seat state of the Art stadium before the first bounce.

Go the Bega Cheeses!
Correct. Geelong set the template for leveraging taxpayers into pouring huge $$$ into a club.

Indeed, they did it so well all the other clubs wanted a piece (in Victoria) and govt recognised it needed to share the love around or risk a backlash.

There's a very strong argument that the Gov Relations job at a club is now one of the most important.
 

SimpkinByTheDockOfTheBay

Seasoned Football Analyst
Aug 21, 2018
21,284
51,928
AFL Club
North Melbourne
This was worded quite poorly. What I mean to say is that whilst clubs were once distributed revenue (from TV rights, etc) quite evenly (despite some clubs being far more profitable for the AFL), the distribution model now is that some clubs get a minimal percentage (West Coast the least, Hawthorn second least most years) whilst others get a far greater proportion of revenue. This negates the benefits of being a club that manages its finances well as parity is restored through inequal distribution by the AFL. This is set to be exaggerated further with another $36M redistribution plan (where 5 clubs lose money earmarked for them and it gets given to the poorer clubs instead).

Combined with the soft cap, this indeed removes much of the benefit of being a wealthy club, in answer to the OP
The soft cap and COVID imo. The AFL used COVID to slay the footy department arms race dragon for a generation.
 

Jack Green

Team Captain
Feb 14, 2018
329
245
AFL Club
St Kilda
I would argue that Hawthorn have been caught on the hop by the change in AFL cultural and economic winds.

Yes they could pay for it on the model that Essendon paid for their industry leading training facility back in the 90s, or West Coast did recently.

But Hawthorn massively dropped the ball on W. The missed opportunities there have been huge.

Kennett was sooking about it before the licence announce was made and he was right - that's where sponsors especially want to see action.

Now Hawthorn are following the established community/W model that gets taxpayer support because they have to in many regards.



Yep, all very true.
When you say Hawthorn caught on the hop by the change in AFL cultural and economic winds , [ and I agree] we probably chiefly mean Kennett. Different thread , but there is some serious movement right now moving to rectify this.
 

SimpkinByTheDockOfTheBay

Seasoned Football Analyst
Aug 21, 2018
21,284
51,928
AFL Club
North Melbourne
When you say Hawthorn caught on the hop by the change in AFL cultural and economic winds , [ and I agree] we probably chiefly mean Kennett. Different thread , but there is some serious movement right now moving to rectify this.
Not just Kennett, but aye, he's the key and was the man in charge. They're trying to rectify it, but damage done.

Again, we mentioned the Dogs and Dees as being the archetype of the smaller club that's thriving now money alone doesn't determine onfield success.

Which two clubs really ran with W first and foremost in Victoria?

Dogs and Dees.
 

Jack Green

Team Captain
Feb 14, 2018
329
245
AFL Club
St Kilda
This was worded quite poorly. What I mean to say is that whilst clubs were once distributed revenue (from TV rights, etc) quite evenly (despite some clubs being far more profitable for the AFL), the distribution model now is that some clubs get a minimal percentage (West Coast the least, Hawthorn second least most years) whilst others get a far greater proportion of revenue. This negates the benefits of being a club that manages its finances well as parity is restored through inequal distribution by the AFL. This is set to be exaggerated further with another $36M redistribution plan (where 5 clubs lose money earmarked for them and it gets given to the poorer clubs instead).

Combined with the soft cap, this indeed removes much of the benefit of being a wealthy club, in answer to the OP
Yep, that's basically my understanding. Brisbane, St Kilda and Gold Coast from memory the main beneficiaries.
 

Jack Green

Team Captain
Feb 14, 2018
329
245
AFL Club
St Kilda
This was worded quite poorly. What I mean to say is that whilst clubs were once distributed revenue (from TV rights, etc) quite evenly (despite some clubs being far more profitable for the AFL), the distribution model now is that some clubs get a minimal percentage (West Coast the least, Hawthorn second least most years) whilst others get a far greater proportion of revenue. This negates the benefits of being a club that manages its finances well as parity is restored through inequal distribution by the AFL. This is set to be exaggerated further with another $36M redistribution plan (where 5 clubs lose money earmarked for them and it gets given to the poorer clubs instead).

Combined with the soft cap, this indeed removes much of the benefit of being a wealthy club, in answer to the OP
Yep, and from memory again, the now infamous Chris Judd 'Visy deal ' , The AFL ruling third party arrangement's counted under the cap.
The AFL has been very strong in it's quest to attain an even competition. :thumbsu:
 

dave10

Club Legend
Apr 26, 2004
2,940
1,924
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Correct. Geelong set the template for leveraging taxpayers into pouring huge $$$ into a club.

Indeed, they did it so well all the other clubs wanted a piece (in Victoria) and govt recognised it needed to share the love around or risk a backlash.

There's a very strong argument that the Gov Relations job at a club is now one of the most important.
I noted with interest the Windy Hill announcement earlier this week. Timing of announcement most intriguing given state and federal elections next year. Up sell the AFLW facility at its core (1), opening up the precinct to become a community use asset (2) mean this will attract government funding. Essendon as I understand is reasonably marginal (Labor) and give density of region it’s no surprise this is announced with an obvious runway if engagement if stakeholders in the wings heading into election year.

Only thing that would make this a funding certainty is a First Nations or indigenous education, medical or resource linkage one would think.

Oh well. Life’s just a big game really. We go along with it!
 

SimpkinByTheDockOfTheBay

Seasoned Football Analyst
Aug 21, 2018
21,284
51,928
AFL Club
North Melbourne
I noted with interest the Windy Hill announcement earlier this week. Timing of announcement most intriguing given state and federal elections next year. Up sell the AFLW facility at its core (1), opening up the precinct to become a community use asset (2) mean this will attract government funding. Essendon as I understand is reasonably marginal (Labor) and give density of region it’s no surprise this is announced with an obvious runway if engagement if stakeholders in the wings heading into election year.

Only thing that would make this a funding certainty is a First Nations or indigenous education, medical or resource linkage one would think.

Oh well. Life’s just a big game really. We go along with it!
Yep, it was that smaller clubs like North and the Dogs leveraged this stuff to get taxpayer cash in order to bridge the gap.

I don't recall the Tulla development hinging as much on these cultural elements ... IIRC that was more a look at big rich Essendon building the biggest and the shiniest in the comp.

I don't see it as Essendon having "fallen" to the level of the smaller clubs, but that the smaller clubs developed a template that then all clubs can use.
 

Kwality

Hall of Famer
Aug 14, 2011
35,347
13,225
Trafalgar
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Mclaren Mercedes F1
Not just Kennett, but aye, he's the key and was the man in charge. They're trying to rectify it, but damage done.

Again, we mentioned the Dogs and Dees as being the archetype of the smaller club that's thriving now money alone doesn't determine onfield success.

Which two clubs really ran with W first and foremost in Victoria?

Dogs and Dees.
When will it be self supporting?
 

Kwality

Hall of Famer
Aug 14, 2011
35,347
13,225
Trafalgar
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Mclaren Mercedes F1
This was worded quite poorly. What I mean to say is that whilst clubs were once distributed revenue (from TV rights, etc) quite evenly (despite some clubs being far more profitable for the AFL), the distribution model now is that some clubs get a minimal percentage (West Coast the least, Hawthorn second least most years) whilst others get a far greater proportion of revenue. This negates the benefits of being a club that manages its finances well as parity is restored through inequal distribution by the AFL. This is set to be exaggerated further with another $36M redistribution plan (where 5 clubs lose money earmarked for them and it gets given to the poorer clubs instead).

Combined with the soft cap, this indeed removes much of the benefit of being a wealthy club, in answer to the OP
:thumbsu: .. where the additional distribution hits difficulty is when it is the result of very poor management, e.g the Brad Scott out of North deal whereby the AFL gave him a job to save the club paying ...
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad