Strategy Which clubs will adapt better to the new spending environment, and which will suffer?

[telsor]

That's because the AFL are not the creditors, they're the distributors if need be. The distributors (the leagues governing body) have ruled that clubs have to spend evenly in FD. Some clubs will have to cut dramatically (the rich ones) and other clubs might might require funds from that line of credit. Haven't heard anything about that last one.

In any case, evening up FD spending can't be a bad thing, clubs will have to smarten up and for the smaller clubs it levels the FD field.

Not sure what the 'problem' is here.

The problem is that the rich clubs will still want to spend money, and the AFL would have a very hard time forcing them not to.

 

[Engimal v3]

Firstly, smaller clubs will still be taking major revenue hits, and thus need to make major cuts.

But even on your theory, Why would that be done?

and why would richer clubs accept that?

Remember, there football dept cap is only a 'soft' cap because the bigger clubs wouldn't agree to a hard cap and the AFL was unable to enforce it.
Also, the further they cut (across the board), the more jobs are going to be lost....Something the AFL would rather avoid (especially as it's an industry where they all know each other...not to mention they'd all have contracts that would need to be broken).

All clubs currently rely on AFL funding, and even more so now I'd imagine. If there was a time for the AFL to push clubs around, now would be it.

 

[The Warlord]

Firstly, smaller clubs will still be taking major revenue hits, and thus need to make major cuts.

Yeah, but that's why the AFL borrowed the $600m against the stadium the small clubs paid for.

So it can help out in this situation and meet revenue.

The AFL's game is equalisation. They will not allow a substantial gap in footy department spending.

But even on your theory, Why would that be done?

Equalisation. Any Given Sunday. The AFL's whole agenda for nearly two decdaes.

and why would richer clubs accept that?

Coz they have no choice.

The richer cubs have no power. What are they going to do, start some six club rebel super league in the middle of a recession?

They'll kick up a stink and Eddie will sook and West Coast will fulminate about Viccos and blah blah blah but in the end, they'll bend over and cop it like they have on every other equalisation measure of the last 15 years.

Remember, there football dept cap is only a 'soft' cap because the bigger clubs wouldn't agree to a hard cap and the AFL was unable to enforce it.

Yep, said that all through the thread, some richer clubs may decide to spend above the soft cap and cop the luxury tax.

Also, the further they cut (across the board), the more jobs are going to be lost....Something the AFL would rather avoid (especially as it's an industry where they all know each other...not to mention they'd all have contracts that would need to be broken).

Yeah, that's already been done.

You post like this is some possible thing in the future. It has happened. The staff have been stood down already.

The only issue is how many come back.

 

[The Warlord]

The problem is that the rich clubs will still want to spend money, and the AFL would have a very hard time forcing them not to.

No it wouldn't. The luxury tax is currently at 37.5 cents in the dollar for each spent over the soft cap.

Say four clubs like West Coast, Hawthorn, Richmond and Collingwood start spending well above the cap.

That means that 14 other clubs are disadvantaged.

AFL says OK, let's make the luxury tax ohhhhh, I dunno, 150 per cent.

Put it the vote.

14 clubs vote yes, four vote no.

You VASTLY overestimate the power of the "rich clubs".

They only have any "power" on BigFooty lol.

 

[The Warlord]

All clubs currently rely on AFL funding, and even more so now I'd imagine. If there was a time for the AFL to push clubs around, now would be it.

And what if there's no selling out the G indefinitely?

Like even when crowds come back, it is at 30 or 50 per cent capacity.

Let's see how good a deal and how "powerful" Richmond and Collingwood are then, when they aren't making the AFL huge coin of attendances.

 

[Carringbush2010]

The problem is that the rich clubs will still want to spend money, and the AFL would have a very hard time forcing them not to.

At least the rich clubs won't have a monopoly on things like FD spend though.

 

[Engimal v3]

And what if there's no selling out the G indefinitely?

Like even when crowds come back, it is at 30 or 50 per cent capacity.

Let's see how good a deal and how "powerful" Richmond and Collingwood are then, when they aren't making the AFL huge coin of attendances.

Maybe. What % of revenue are memberships, on average? Ignoring exact monetary value (as this varies), Collingwood/Richmond can probably bank on 40-60k more memberships than North for example. Big clubs will still be big clubs.

 

[fargothegreat]

Up until now, the AFL has been seeking equalisation mainly by pumping money into the poor clubs, so they can keep up with the rich clubs, but the money won't be there now to do that, so they don't really have a choice but to drastically cap the rich clubs' spending instead, to keep everyone equal.

I don't think it will have too much of an impact. It's not money that makes a good football department, it's choosing the right people, and the clubs that have been good at that will continue to be good at that.

 

[BF Tiger]

Clubs will have to consider their needs and wants very closely. Staff will be cut, but it might not be as deep as some think. A 50% cut in the salary cap might only mean a 33% cut in staff if they can also reduce salaries.

 

[The Nostradamus]

Clubs who have been already operating with less staff

Richmond have been quoted as having over 50 staff and one of the most in the league. Then having to trim it to 25 staff from now on will essentially double the workload of everyone left

 

[WCE_phil]

Can see some clubs (WCE in particular) breaking the soft cap and working ways around it. Can see a lot of football department staff at larger clubs having 'part time' jobs elsewhere propping up their income whilst also working for clubs.

 

[The Nostradamus]

Can see some clubs (WCE in particular) breaking the soft cap and working ways around it. Can see a lot of football department staff at larger clubs having 'part time' jobs elsewhere propping up their income whilst also working for clubs.

For this season that won’t help as each club can only have max 25 staff regardless of cap from tomorrow onwards

 

[The Warlord]

Dramatic cuts: What the 25-person footy department might look like

AFL clubs must operate with a reduced football department in the coronavirus-affected 2020 season

www.afl.com.au

 

[BF Tiger]

For this season that won’t help as each club can only have max 25 staff regardless of cap from tomorrow onwards

It is 25 staff in contact with the players/each other and attending club facilities. Remotely employed staff are still allowed.

 

[mightymouse75]

No it wouldn't. The luxury tax is currently at 37.5 cents in the dollar for each spent over the soft cap.

Say four clubs like West Coast, Hawthorn, Richmond and Collingwood start spending well above the cap.

That means that 14 other clubs are disadvantaged.

AFL says OK, let's make the luxury tax ohhhhh, I dunno, 150 per cent.

Put it the vote.

14 clubs vote yes, four vote no.

You VASTLY overestimate the power of the "rich clubs".

They only have any "power" on BigFooty lol.

Much prefer a vote for increasing spending again while removing 2 basket cases from the Afl.
Difficult decision but it would strengthen the game short & more importantly long term.
Australia is not big enough for more than 18 teams & the scourge of too many Victorian teams is holding the league back.

Dont underestimate the power of the big teams.

 

[fargothegreat]

Much prefer a vote for increasing spending again while removing 2 basket cases from the Afl.
Difficult decision but it would strengthen the game short & more importantly long term.
Australia is not big enough for more than 18 teams & the scourge of too many Victorian teams is holding the league back.

Dont underestimate the power of the big teams.

The AFL won't reduce the number of teams. They need the broadcast rights $$$. If any team is cut or merged, they would be replaced.

Tighter restrictions on footy department spending are here to stay.

 

[The_Reaper]

Maybe the smaller clubs should get self sufficient rather than having to always get the AFL to cripple the bigger clubs.

The cost of football: West Coast fans pay the most, Essendon fans the least for membership

Show me the money! The price of footy

www.foxsports.com.au

If West Coast fans are willing to spend $200 more a year than Essendon fans why shouldn't West Coast be allowed to spend that money?

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Maybe the smaller clubs should get self sufficient rather than having to always get the AFL to cripple the bigger clubs.

The cost of football: West Coast fans pay the most, Essendon fans the least for membership

Show me the money! The price of footy

www.foxsports.com.au

If West Coast fans are willing to spend $200 more a year than Essendon fans why shouldn't West Coast be allowed to spend that money?

It’s ridiculous, life is not equal and bringing back the rich to the poor has never worked.
How many more years or decades do we have to wait for these clubs to get financial and make a profit. Worst CEO’s in history.

 

[The Warlord]

Maybe the smaller clubs should get self sufficient rather than having to always get the AFL to cripple the bigger clubs.

The cost of football: West Coast fans pay the most, Essendon fans the least for membership

Show me the money! The price of footy

www.foxsports.com.au

If West Coast fans are willing to spend $200 more a year than Essendon fans why shouldn't West Coast be allowed to spend that money?

Because the clubs voted in favour of an equalisation policy, to avoid a stupidly lopsided competition, that would inevitably kill it off.

 

[The Warlord]

It’s ridiculous, life is not equal and bringing back the rich to the poor has never worked.
How many more years or decades do we have to wait for these clubs to get financial and make a profit. Worst CEO’s in history.

You'll be enduring this for many decades.

It doesn't really seem to hold the Eagles back though - along with Hawthorn the most successful AFL era club no?

 

[The_Reaper]

You'll be enduring this for many decades.

It doesn't really seem to hold the Eagles back though - along with Hawthorn the most successful AFL era club no?

And now with further bullshit restrictions.

Funny how no other sporting league in the world needs all this.

 

[The Nostradamus]

All about the any given weekend idea.
And not having a epl situation where it’s the same 4 teams winning and only once in a blue moon another side wins

In saying that saints 1 flag, freo none etc so there is heaps of room for competitive advantage within the equalisation constraints

 

[The Warlord]

And now with further bullshit restrictions.

Funny how no other sporting league in the world needs all this.

What?

 

[The Warlord]

The squeeze on the soft cap has also meant the Blues and their rivals have had to make some tough decisions.

“We had to make a call on the 24 plus a compliance manager,” Lloyd said of the names the club lodged to the AFL last Thursday.

“It will be a trimming across the board – it is impacting on coaching, it is impacting on high performance, it is impacting on recruiting.”

No Cookies | Herald Sun

No Cookies

www.heraldsun.com.au

 

[The_Reaper]

All about the any given weekend idea.
And not having a epl situation where it’s the same 4 teams winning and only once in a blue moon another side wins

In saying that saints 1 flag, freo none etc so there is heaps of room for competitive advantage within the equalisation constraints

The draft and salary cap are sufficient for that. Arguably just the draft given that the NRL is more equal than the AFL.