Discussion paper on equalisation

[Interloper]

We can spin it whatever way we like.

The average fan wont read the article or the detail.
They see the president of our club on the back page above the headline pokies tax, they hear the 1 line summary on the SEN news flashes saying the Bulldogs president wants to tax club pokies revenues for distribution that they already have formed their opinions - A poor club wants money from the rich club.

Its like the luxury tax - which I think people got totally wrong. I heard numerous callers on radio saying I'm not giving 5% of my membership to the dogs or roos - that's totally not the point.
The luxury tax was formed as a way to cap footy club spending. So potentially none of that persons membership $$ would be distributed if their club was willing to go easy on the amount they spent in the footy department. If they want to spend over the cap then they get hit up a tax. pretty simple I thought. The extra tax they paid that went to clubs would help them become more competitive in that area and get closer to the cap.

Point being though in both cases the common fan doesnt see the logic or read detail - they see its the poor clubs grabbing for a handout again.

I agree with you that the average fan will see it that way, it will be presented that way in the media and those with vested interests will do nothing to dissuade them from it. Good on the Geelong Football Club for seeing the big picutre.
Just on the Anzac day fixture, I'm wondering why they don't play 4 Anzac Day games. One in each state of Victoria, Sth Australia, NSW and WA. Each of the interstate games could double up as showdown local derbys and you'd get massive crowds to all of them. The vic combatants could be decided by highest placed vic teams from the year before. After all, I don't think the old diggers had exclusivity in their hearts when they were fighting knee deep in shit on Anzac Cove. Pretty sure they were fighting for all Australians (and the Kiwis).

 

[dogwatch]

I agree with you that the average fan will see it that way, it will be presented that way in the media and those with vested interests will do nothing to dissuade them from it. Good on the Geelong Football Club for seeing the big picutre.
Just on the Anzac day fixture, I'm wondering why they don't play 4 Anzac Day games. One in each state of Victoria, Sth Australia, NSW and WA. Each of the interstate games could double up as showdown local derbys and you'd get massive crowds to all of them. The vic combatants could be decided by highest placed vic teams from the year before. After all, I don't think the old diggers had exclusivity in their hearts when they were fighting knee deep in shit on Anzac Cove. Pretty sure they were fighting for all Australians (and the Kiwis).

Great idea Interloper but Essendon and Collingwood will hate it. It won't stop 70,000 going to the G but it will remove their aura of exclusivity. That's if it stays Ess v Coll. Even better if they make it the top two placed Vic teams!

I reckon play one game between top two placed Qld/NSW clubs and one between top two placed WA/SA clubs - makes only three games for the day - that's about the AFL daily quota.

Too sensible an idea for the AFL to take up though.

 

[dogwatch]

We can spin it whatever way we like.

The average fan wont read the article or the detail.
They see the president of our club on the back page above the headline pokies tax, they hear the 1 line summary on the SEN news flashes saying the Bulldogs president wants to tax club pokies revenues for distribution that they already have formed their opinions - A poor club wants money from the rich club.

Its like the luxury tax - which I think people got totally wrong. I heard numerous callers on radio saying I'm not giving 5% of my membership to the dogs or roos - that's totally not the point.
The luxury tax was formed as a way to cap footy club spending. So potentially none of that persons membership $$ would be distributed if their club was willing to go easy on the amount they spent in the footy department. If they want to spend over the cap then they get hit up a tax. pretty simple I thought. The extra tax they paid that went to clubs would help them become more competitive in that area and get closer to the cap.

Point being though in both cases the common fan doesnt see the logic or read detail - they see its the poor clubs grabbing for a handout again.

Good points, Cyclops. It's like politics. Reduce it to populist one-liners and 10 second TV grabs. Don't encourage anyone to use their intellect. Don't encourage any analysis of what's really being proposed.

What you Melbourne-based people should do is take a line from skooshtamart - get on the talkback line and say in response: We don't want your 5% and we're not asking for it. But w'e're not giving away our rights to an equitable draw to the clubs that are already rich (and quite often haven't earned the rights to a blockbuster by finishing top 2).

 

[Interloper]

Great idea Interloper but Essendon and Collingwood will hate it. It won't stop 70,000 going to the G but it will remove their aura of exclusivity. That's if it stays Ess v Coll. Even better if they make it the top two placed Vic teams!

I reckon play one game between top two placed Qld/NSW clubs and one between top two placed WA/SA clubs - makes only three games for the day - that's about the AFL daily quota.

Too sensible an idea for the AFL to take up though.

Haha, yes they will. You could expect them to mount a tradition defense (or offense) and proponents of a shared Avzac Day fixture will counter with an equality (fair go) argument. Exclusive tradition versus equality. One of them is almost unAustralian .
I don't think you'd lose anything in crowd numbers. And can you imagine the heat that is going to go into the round 24 game where 2nd placed vic team plays 3rd placed (assumed placings end of regular season but could easily be finals). On the line is a place in next years Anzac fixture. You could then pre-sell tickets months in advance. Would be a massive deal and boost for any vic club and its membership and the fans will realise their participation is an honour to be treasured and not taken for granted.
I like your idea for the other two games for the other 4 states. Might have to find a way in for Tassie and NT too. After all, we're pushing inclusiveness and trying to put exclusivity in its place.

 

[dogwatch]

Exclusive tradition versus equality. One of them is almost unAustralian .

Yeah, we haven't been much good on equality since the decade of greed - the 1980s.

 

[Interloper]

Just extending this idea a little further. I left (mistakenly) Queensland out of the equation. So what if there were 2 Anzac Day matches. A victorian one and an interstate one. The Victorian match is made up of the two highest placed vic based teams from the previous year and always played at the MCG. The non vic match would similarly consist of the two highest placed non vic teams from the previous year. It would be possible under this scenario for a local derby to also be an Anzac fixture. The highest placed non vic team would also earn the right to host the match. The following weeks fixtures could then be arranged so that the four competing teams play each other ( but not the same opponent) in a regular season fixture to ensure no disadvantage from having taken part in the Anzac day match.

 

[dogsbody]

Haha, yes they will. You could expect them to mount a tradition defense (or offense) and proponents of a shared Avzac Day fixture will counter with an equality (fair go) argument. Exclusive tradition versus equality. One of them is almost unAustralian .
...

In one thread on the main board a few years ago, some fool claimed that the diggers played games of footy dressed in E'don and C'wood jumpers ! I've given up posting on the main board, it's just a waste of time.

 

[Sharkey66]

Found this article in the Australian.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/afl/gambling-act-bites-dogs-plan/story-fnca0u4y-1226586372129\

"But, after making inquiries to the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation, The Australian was told sharing of gaming profits might be considered illegal."
Did the club do its homework on this?

 

[Interloper]

Found this article in the Australian.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/afl/gambling-act-bites-dogs-plan/story-fnca0u4y-1226586372129\

"But, after making inquiries to the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation, The Australian was told sharing of gaming profits might be considered illegal."
Did the club do its homework on this?

This is where you (general you) need to mindful of language. It might be considered illegal. Equally it might be considered legal. Perhaps they did their homework and discovered it might be legal. I note that the article also says

"A prohibited venue agreement is an agreement, arrangement or understanding entered into by a venue operator under which the venue operator provides to another person, as consideration, an amount calculated by reference to its gaming machine revenue," the VCGLR said.

The AFL is not a person and it is not qualified by adding company or organisation. So it's arguable.

 

[Interloper]

In one thread on the main board a few years ago, some fool claimed that the diggers played games of footy dressed in E'don and C'wood jumpers ! I've given up posting on the main board, it's just a waste of time.

Mmmm yes. I've posted on the main board once and that was to ask a question of what appeared to be an interesting and intelligent poster. There are a number of those but I've noticed a tendancy for discussions to deteriorate into LCD slanging matches. Pass. I like the look alike threads though and did enjoy the one the President elects brother.

 

[Interloper]

Yeah, we haven't been much good on equality since the decade of greed - the 1980s.

It was a decade of excess, 86 especially. Remember the cray n krug combo ?

I liked this paragraph from the Dogs' submission

It was Rottenberg who first stressed the importance to sporting competition of uncertainty of outcome
and distribution of talent: ‘The nature of the industry is such that competitors must be of approximately
equal ‘size’ if any are to be successful; this seems to be a unique attribute of professional competitive
sports.’ This ‘invariance principle’ was because a league in which the strong simply soaked up all the
talent would defeat itself:

“
Indicative of an interdependence which is lost on many people and possible deliberately ignored where a strictly corporate model is preferred by those with the most to gain.

 

[dogwatch]

Found this article in the Australian.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/afl/gambling-act-bites-dogs-plan/story-fnca0u4y-1226586372129\

"But, after making inquiries to the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation, The Australian was told sharing of gaming profits might be considered illegal."
Did the club do its homework on this?

In that article it say Gordon stated we have accumulated debt of $7m. How is this? We have been contributing to it for two years and I understand we raised more than the annual interest last year, so why has it grown from $5m to $7m?

This is where you (general you) need to mindful of language. It might be considered illegal. Equally it might be considered legal. Perhaps they did their homework and discovered it might be legal. I note that the article also says

"A prohibited venue agreement is an agreement, arrangement or understanding entered into by a venue operator under which the venue operator provides to another person, as consideration, an amount calculated by reference to its gaming machine revenue," the VCGLR said.

The AFL is not a person and it is not qualified by adding company or organisation. So it's arguable.

How does the act define "person"? Perhaps an entity can be a "person"? After all, if these arrangements are undesirable it would seem odd to prohibit such an arrangement only with individual citizens and not with other entities.

 

[Interloper]

In that article it say Gordon stated we have accumulated debt of $7m. How is this? We have been contributing to it for two years and I understand we raised more than the annual interest last year, so why has it grown from $5m to $7m?

How does the act define "person"? Perhaps an entity can be a "person"? After all, if these arrangements are undesirable it would seem odd to prohibit such an arrangement only with individual citizens and not with other entities.

You are correct DW. The Gambling Regulation Act 2003 defines "person" as:

person
includes a body (whether or not incorporated), a partnership and the Trustees

The AFL is not a person and it is not qualified by adding company or organisation. So it's arguable.

Withdrawn

 

[Interloper]

The Act is 1212 pages long. Happy to let Peter Gordon et al wade their way through that one looking for the magic bullet.

 

[dogwatch]

Interesting article on AFLPA concerns:
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/spending-imbalance-worries-aflpa-20130318-2gb83.html

Spending imbalance worries AFLPA​

'AFL players have labelled the disparity in spending between the power and smaller clubs as an ''emerging industrial issue'', revealing it will be dissected as part of a major review of player payments this year.​

'The AFL Players Association will not attend the AFL's equalisation meeting of league executives and club chiefs on Wednesday, but AFLPA chief executive Matt Finnis said players had ''as much to lose as anybody'' if the gap was not closed.'​

​

We need to watch developments in this area.

On the face of it the AFLPA could be an unlikely ally in helping obtain greater revenue sharing in the AFL as apparently happens in some major overseas leagues. However it could also be dire for us if the AFL response was to withdraw support for one or more of the poorer clubs in their current shape (e.g. by relocation or merging). The AFLPA is tight-lipped on how it might play out, just that it wants all its players to have a fair slice of the cake. I think it's more likely that they could help us achieve a greater level of revenue sharing but there are so many factors and unknowns.

IMO the biggest off-field issues affecting our club's future and viability will be

• equalisation / revenue sharing discussions (incl stadium agreements) - this year
• AFLPA Collective Bargaining Agreement - next year or two
• the next round of TV rights negotiation - still a few years away
• The AFL's medium to long term term vision/strategy - e.g. further expansions / relocations

Does anyone know if the AFL 2012 Annual Report has been published? All I could find was the 2011 report -
http://mm.afl.com.au/portals/0/2012/afl_annual_report_2011.pdf

I know it's somewhat old news but p41-43 (strategic planning) makes interesting reading.
It says that there is about $144m for the Club Future Fund. $58m of this is for equal payments to all clubs from 2012-2016. $48m is for unequal distributions from 2012-2014 (WB and North are top of that list with nearly $7m each). A further $37m is held over for distribution to clubs as required in 2015-2016 but the manner of distribution has not been determined yet although there is likely to be "a higher proportion of unequal distributions" to clubs.

Among the compliance requirements for the CFF it says that funding will be linked to the achievement of certain outcomes and that if those outcomes are not achieved the AFL may:

• conduct a detailed review of the club
• withhold or restructure funding packages
• reserve "the right to take more serious action"

If we fell foul of these arrangements I doubt that any amount of tin-rattling would save us like it did in '89 as the amounts of money involved are so much greater now and the forces at work are so much stronger.

I trust we are on track to achieve all the AFL's required outcomes whatever they are. It occurs to me that one of those outcomes should be to achieve greater equality of TPPs across all clubs and so stop the AFLPA from getting too restive.

Thus it comes full circle - the AFLPA wants fairly equal TPPs - we want greater revenue sharing (and probably fewer TPP concessions to northern clubs) to help us achieve that. A flow-on benefit would surely be something the AFL would be seeking: a levelling of the playing field across the competition so that all clubs have a good chance of on-field success over a 10-year period. That's a lovely strategic convergence.

The biggest obstacle will continue to be the entrenched benefits to the richer clubs in their stadium agreements, blockbusters, general fixtures and media coverage, something they will fight strongly to retain.

 

[DylanW]

I would be interested to see a table of clubs coaching expenses. I was watching AFL360 last night which lead me to wonder what Collingwood are paying Eade to be a 'tactical coach' - would bet it's more than Macca makes

 

[Dazb86]

Was listening to the radio today and they mentioned that Sunday twilight games and games that attracted less people could be made cheaper to get into.

I'm not sure how this helps out the clubs? I can see how it helps the supporters.

 

[Sharkey66]

Was listening to the radio today and they mentioned that Sunday twilight games and games that attracted less people could be made cheaper to get into.

I'm not sure how this helps out the clubs? I can see how it helps the supporters.

Exactly, its not the price of the game entry stopping me from going to sunday twilight matches, its the fact that i have to get up at 5am the next morning for work. Just too late in the day for people that live a fair way away from the game.

 

[dogwatch]

Some of the more interesting ideas and outcomes from the meeting between club presidents & CEOs with the AFL executive on Wednesday were:

• an in-season mini-draft for struggling clubs (I can't see how this would fix finances)
• a ban on top 4 clubs getting free agents (WCE proposed this) - also an implication that bottom clubs would have unrestricted access (this worries me as it could help encourage tanking again)
• sale of the AFL logo rights on the jumper - funds to be passed on to poorer clubs
• increase cost of AFL memberships with the extra revenue going to poorer clubs
• AFL expects to need an extra $15m-$18m for the unequal distributions to poorer clubs
• average football department spending is rising at 8% p.a. - described as "uncontrollable"
• all clubs should be paying 100% of salary cap (currently 95% minimum)

Some creative ideas were tabled, but more importantly there seemed to be a collective will to do deal with the problem constructively.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/logo-minidraft-on-table-20130320-2gg0m.html

 

[DylanW]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-03-20/demetriou-admits-cap-quandary

And guess what Demetriou makes? A modest 8.8M a year

 

[arkie]

The only answer to this is to equally distribute gate receipts among all clubs. A socialist approach like this is what they do in the NFL. So when Collingwood vs Essendon on ANZAC day sell out, we and every other club will benefit! The NFL is a league that clearly has the best equalization strategy in the world. You just need to look at the amount of upsets on any given Sunday. Just look at the inequality in the NBA and how the small market teams have basically become irrelevant.

It will probably never happen but I think it will be the only true and effective way of providing a level playing field.