Discussion paper on equalisation

[arkie]

You can read the discussion paper by going here and opening the PDF.

What are your thoughts?

Richer clubs of the competition aren't going to agree with any of this. Although, I agree with the clubs stance on equalisation. I like the fact that we don't agree with a luxury tax on football department spend. Can't see the equal distribution of gaming machine profits ever happening.

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

I'll give it a read in a little while, should be interesting.

I'm not really that crash-hot with the business side of the organisation, but I'm really impressed with how quickly Gordon is acting with all this. Doing a good job so far; hopefully the AFL will listen.

 

[dogsbody]

..., but I'm really impressed with how quickly Gordon is acting with all this. Doing a good job so far; hopefully the AFL will listen.

He's got himself an weekly Friday morning gig in Jon Faine's program on 774. He's been cautious so far, he aired it that the NFL pools all income to the game and distributes it to all clubs so that everyone is in with a shot of winning the super bowl, equalisation will be an issue he pushes, I reckon. In his first time 'round, he was pugnacious, which reflected the defiance of the time, remember that at the end of 1996, following fightback, the club was debt free and had money in the bank - in an era when turnover was around $3mil per annum. That approach in the current climate would be counter productive. I'm still apprehensive about his aggressive instincts.

 

[arkie]

As well as looking for new equalisation measures we need to make sure the AFL maintains a hard salary cap. Remember the talk of a luxury tax on the salary cap similar to the NBA? That's only going to drive star players away from poor clubs and rich clubs will find it easier to retain players. We need to make sure nothing like this ever happens. Maintain a hard salary cap similar to the NFL.

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

He's got himself an weekly Friday morning gig in Jon Faine's program on 774. He's been cautious so far, he aired it that the NFL pools all income to the game and distributes it to all clubs so that everyone is in with a shot of winning the super bowl, equalisation will be an issue he pushes, I reckon. In his first time 'round, he was pugnacious, which reflected the defiance of the time, remember that at the end of 1996, following fightback, the club was debt free and had money in the bank - in an era when turnover was around $3mil per annum. That approach in the current climate would be counter productive. I'm still apprehensive about his aggressive instincts.

Fair enough mate, and as I said I'm certainly not an expert on the issues which he's attempting to tackle - I just think he's doing a good job of being proactive and trying to express his concerns to the wider community.

 

[dogsbody]

...he's doing a good job of being proactive and trying to express his concerns to the wider community.

I agree with that, the Jon Faine spot is brilliant because he'll be able to enunciate concerns clearly without them being sensationalised the way they would be with the shock jocks. A strong, unafraid and reasonable voice is what's called for.

 

[BIG_BONTS]

I think it was a good paper. Just need to get more clubs on board.

Gordon is a passionate doggies man and I don't question his value to the club, but his public speaking/speech making is pretty average. Could do with some coaching. We need to feel inspired and see the passion from him. Otherwise he's just another suit at the top for the average doggies member

 

[gimp!]

I think it was a good paper. Just need to get more clubs on board.

Gordon is a passionate doggies man and I don't question his value to the club, but his public speaking/speech making is pretty average. Could do with some coaching. We need to feel inspired and see the passion from him. Otherwise he's just another suit at the top for the average doggies member

I think he speaks ok? Just that Smorgon is a particularly good orator. Plus the fact that he has already appeared on the Dogs website a couple of times is great, members and supporters will appreciate that.

 

[dogsbody]

I think it was a good paper. Just need to get more clubs on board.

Gordon is a passionate doggies man and I don't question his value to the club, but his public speaking/speech making is pretty average. Could do with some coaching. We need to feel inspired and see the passion from him. Otherwise he's just another suit at the top for the average doggies member

If you look in the "news" portion of Bigfooty, you'll see a summary and extracts from Geelong's paper. It recognises the structural inequalities and advocates reducing or eliminating league dividends to wealthy clubs. It's comforting to see recognition of undeserved inequality instead of the usual derision.

I think Peter Gordon's voice works well. He speaks quickly and his accent is broad which makes him stand out and he comes across as being full of ideas and impatient to express them. It sounds better than Smorgo's measured tones to the ordinary member-supporter.

 

[dogzrule]

We will only ever play catch up trying to get other clubs to pay a subsidy

Nothing against Gordon personally he really loves the club but the days between 89 and 96 are long gone and if he thinks that the future is about other clubs chipping in a few buck to help the old doggies survive he is plain WRONG. I got shivers when I read the article. It is not strategy it is plugging holes

 

[Eastdog]

I don't think it's fair for the clubs that have good financial management to bail out clubs who don't take care of their finances. Collingwood in 1985 could of gone bust and now look at them today. They didn't have assistance from the VFL/AFL. It is possible to get a club back into good financial shape without AFL assistance. What you need is people on the board who are business orientated and know what their doing. Other clubs apart from Collingwood have also been nearly gone or struggling but are now doing very well today.

 

[Interloper]

You can read the discussion paper by going here and opening the PDF.

What are your thoughts?

Richer clubs of the competition aren't going to agree with any of this. Although, I agree with the clubs stance on equalisation. I like the fact that we don't agree with a luxury tax on football department spend. Can't see the equal distribution of gaming machine profits ever happening.

OfficialBulldogs

I think the club has done an excellent job articulating how the current situation adversley affects us but pro-actively suggests a solution based on the NFL system of equalisation in the states. Our whole argument is premised on the point that weak clubs mean a weak competition and I agree with that as being a very valid reason to do what is necessary to level the playing field in the wider interests of the game, not just us. I think they make the point well in their submission.
Using terms like luxury tax are divisive from the outset and not likely to stimulate rational discussion amongst the wider footballing public. People will be blinded by both luxury and tax when in effect they are redistribution measures for the benefit of the game/competition generally. Poorer clubs like us may be disproportionate recipients of the redistribution (intially) but we form part of the competition and it's important for us and other poor teams to be competitive for the very obvious reason of the game as a spectacle. If the gap between the powerful (currently) and struggling (currently) is not addressed, or worse widens, the games the strugglers play in cease to be spectacles and detract from the competition and game itself.
Do the footballing public want to go to games where the result is all but inevitable? Where's the excitement in that?

 

[SonOfScray]

Very interesting comments re: gaming revenue. The scenario suggested sits comfortably with my views on this Club and exposing its community in particular to gaming machines as a vital aspect of the Club's operation. Reducing individual clubs' complete dependence on Pokies and sharing the load across clubs, demographics etc potentially reduces the exposure and risk to some of the states most vulnerable. Probably not a major blow to the gambling and the west issue but a wise move in my books.

Found myself right on board with most of the paper. Benchmarking concepts made a lot of sense, the idea that there is a ceiling to the bigger clubs' support and the stadium deals are well worn topics. Someone always will be the small fish, once people get over that and look after the pond, all the fish are better off.

 

[Interloper]

OfficialBulldogs

The key apsect to our submission, and I believe it is the right one to focus on, is that the game itself is the golden goose from which all benefit is derived. Whether that's a viewing pleasure/benefit of the football loving public or an economic benefit derived by the participants (players, coaches clubs) there is nothing without both integrity and uncertainty in the result of a match "on any given Sunday". Educating or reacquanting the footballing public, jaded by relentless commercial and market saturation imperatives, with this concept and its fundamental importance as the starting point to all that is football, is essential.

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

I agree with that, the Jon Faine spot is brilliant because he'll be able to enunciate concerns clearly without them being sensationalised the way they would be with the shock jocks. A strong, unafraid and reasonable voice is what's called for.

Excuse the intrusion guys...
I agree with dogsbody...the more different voices that speak up about the AFL and its shambolic policies...ie the draw...stadium deals...friday night footy...the better...
Hopefully something positive and constructive comes out of the discussions...for all clubs...
All the best......

 

[dogsbody]

I don't think it's fair for the clubs that have good financial management to bail out clubs who don't take care of their finances. Collingwood in 1985 could of gone bust and now look at them today. They didn't have assistance from the VFL/AFL. It is possible to get a club back into good financial shape without AFL assistance. What you need is people on the board who are business orientated and know what their doing. Other clubs apart from Collingwood have also been nearly gone or struggling but are now doing very well today.

I'm not sure it was 1985 but when McAllister was president, the pies were close to broke. They got a dozen or so wealthy supporters to tip in a bit each and they were on their way again, I've no doubt they contacted more than a dozen. We can't do that because we don't have that many. I don't think you can say that we've been a club that doesn't take care of its finances since 1990 yet we came close to folding in 1996 and, despite being among the top performers on field during that time, we've a debt of around $8mil whilst C'wood can afford a pubs debacle and still have money in the bank. C'wood gets massive assistance from the VFL/AFL in terms of fixturing and promotions, not to mention the dream run it gets from TV, newspapers, radio. I don't think there are any other clubs that have struggled and are now doing very well. Footscray and North Melbourne face structural difficulties in being admitted in 1925, when families already had their VFL clubs. Hawthorn were the same until the 70s. I bought a team full of talent that neither North nor we could ever have been able to afford and broke the mould. That can't be replicated now because of salary caps and drafts. Brisbane and Sydney got preferential treatment in salary cap relief and, particularly Brisbane, draft and area concessions, from the AFL to win their flags and the Swans in particular enjoy such an advantage as to be able to afford Tippett, even C'wood couldn't have.

Look at Carlton, it's been down and out for a decade on top of which were sold out by Collins, that would have killed us yet they were able to get Judd and more pokies than you could shake a stick at and that when they had Kernahan running the place ! It, like C'wood, can and does turn it round once it gets competitive on the field.

Essendon was a nothing club from 2004 to recently yet still had preferential fixturing and Anzac Day. That one day makes them more profit than we make in 3 seasons when we are playing finals !

The advantages those sorts of clubs are cumulative i.e they jst get greater each year because they are entrenched and that's no matter where they finish on the ladder.

Have a look at the Geelong response in the News part of Bigfooty - these ideas are enunciated there. Don'y take notice of what's repeated timea and again on the main Board by C'wood, C'ton, E'don and H'thorn supporters, it's a feel goog thing for them, the administrators of footy cubs and the AFL know the score.

 

[skooshtamart]

The submission outlines sound arguments and solutions with respect to stadium arrangement imbalances. Perhaps the Etihad tenants should charge twice the price for game entry, in line with relative stadium costs, of course, and rebate tenant supporters. It does not make sense when running a business that your sell price is locked, out of your control, irrespective of your cost. While other teams enjoy a sell price relative to cost. The imbalance that is driven by KPI's, that manipulate fixturing for crowd numbers, is the biggest problem. The draw needs to be a draw, Anzac day should be a reward for making the Grand final, the previous year. The two losing preliminary finalists kick off round 1, etc etc.Reward for effort. If you have to travel 8-9 times in one year, stiff bicky, interstate teams do it. The fact the some teams can sit down in a negotiation, with a potential sponsor, partner or player, leverage the benefits of locked in and bankable fixtures, for the next 3 or 4 years, is simply anti competitive and puts others at a disadvantage. Forget the tradition argument garbage, it is anti competitive.

 

[JJHunter]

We will only ever play catch up trying to get other clubs to pay a subsidy

Nothing against Gordon personally he really loves the club but the days between 89 and 96 are long gone and if he thinks that the future is about other clubs chipping in a few buck to help the old doggies survive he is plain WRONG. I got shivers when I read the article. It is not strategy it is plugging holes

Wow thought I was the only one with shivers.
Not much mentioned about the fact Mathenson vics pokies king in recent years took pokie license off us and Richmond and gave em to Carlton, this stunk to high heaven of pay back.

Hate being on back of papers asking for handouts!

 

[dogwatch]

This is a politely worded document but it only barely conceals our indignation - even anger - at the way certain clubs are given first opportunity to put their snouts in the trough. It does make the point that the AFL is the one perpetuating these arrangements, so it must be the AFL who fixes it (or at least redresses the impacts).

It seeks to head off the protestations of the big clubs by saying there should be no luxury tax and indeed there should be no contrived equality of outputs. All we are asking for is an equal opportunity to do business ... a good old-fashioned "fair go". Unfortunately while politics and big business always give lip service to a "fair go" it's usually the last thing they will give until they are forced, shamed or embarrassed into doing so.

So the fact that it is a logical, fair and reasonably concise paper doesn't mean it will be a shoo-in. Gordon and his allies will have a lot of work to do behind closed doors. I haven't seen any favorable comment from the media yet ... in fact I'm struggling to think of any media comment on the topic. Anyway don't expect any favours there.

I agree with the suggestion from skooshtamart that the so-called blockbuster events must be earned (eg from previous year's performance) and should not be an automatic entitlement. Mind you, the WB submission hasn't suggested it in as many words, as it is likely to be a fairly emotive proposal which would have the big clubs (Essendon and Collingwood in particular) coming out with a fierce response, because they know how valuable it is. The pooling of gate receipts would go part of the way towards fixing this, but that's only in terms of the current account. It would not redress the fantastic exposure and aura that it creates for these clubs.

I thought overall the submission was pretty good, although there must be a whole lot more that has not been publicly released, mainly the numbers/$$. (Perhaps not even released to the AFL?) For instance, I would be interested to know what the relative impact of each proposal is expected to be. Which one will make the greatest contribution to our bottom line? I have no doubt that the club has done some calculations on each proposal.

My guess is the biggest one would be pooling of match costs and receipts ... by a big margin. Then maybe the "future fund" arrangements.

 

[Interloper]

I think interpreting what Gordon has submitted as asking for handouts is looking at it the wrong way. Ultimately what is important is that the game is played by relatively equal teams or the game generally will suffer as a spectacle. A number of possibilities for achieving this have been put on the table through the dogs and cats submissions. The suggestions generally address an underlying financial inequality that prevents some teams, of which we are one, remaining competitive because the financial component of a club is a significant determinant of its capacity to be competitive. The status quo as it is entrenches those inequalities (the draw, fixturing, stadium deals are all part of that). Whatever steps are proposed and ultimately taken to address these inequalities address not only our needs but the needs of the game/competition. i.e competitive teams and a spectacle worth watching.
The AFL is a play thing for many super egos and those egos tend to gravitate to positions of power where they can engage in pissing contests against each other, often clothed in the rhetoric of doing things in their respective clubs or the games interests where I would suggest many of the things these people do are in their own interests to satisfy their own egos and what happens to the game is secondary. Much of what the dogs have submitted is not in the interests of some of these people and we can expect forces to rally against and discredit what has been proposed by obscuring it in the language of handouts, charity etc. Like most things, a clearer picture can be obtained by an examination of "cui bono".

 

[Interloper]

This is a politely worded document but it only barely conceals our indignation - even anger - at the way certain clubs are given first opportunity to put their snouts in the trough. It does make the point that the AFL is the one perpetuating these arrangements, so it must be the AFL who fixes it (or at least redresses the impacts).

It seeks to head off the protestations of the big clubs by saying there should be no luxury tax and indeed there should be no contrived equality of outputs. All we are asking for is an equal opportunity to do business ... a good old-fashioned "fair go". Unfortunately while politics and big business always give lip service to a "fair go" it's usually the last thing they will give until they are forced, shamed or embarrassed into doing so.

So the fact that it is a logical, fair and reasonably concise paper doesn't mean it will be a shoo-in. Gordon and his allies will have a lot of work to do behind closed doors. I haven't seen any favorable comment from the media yet ... in fact I'm struggling to think of any media comment on the topic. Anyway don't expect any favours there.

I agree with the suggestion from skooshtamart that the so-called blockbuster events must be earned (eg from previous year's performance) and should not be an automatic entitlement. Mind you, the WB submission hasn't suggested it in as many words, as it is likely to be a fairly emotive proposal which would have the big clubs (Essendon and Collingwood in particular) coming out with a fierce response, because they know how valuable it is. The pooling of gate receipts would go part of the way towards fixing this, but that's only in terms of the current account. It would not redress the fantastic exposure and aura that it creates for these clubs.

I thought overall the submission was pretty good, although there must be a whole lot more that has not been publicly released, mainly the numbers/$$. (Perhaps not even released to the AFL?) For instance, I would be interested to know what the relative impact of each proposal is expected to be. Which one will make the greatest contribution to our bottom line? I have no doubt that the club has done some calculations on each proposal.

My guess is the biggest one would be pooling of match costs and receipts ... by a big margin. Then maybe the "future fund" arrangements.

Was writing while you posted this but I think this is a pretty fair summary. I agree that the tone of the submission barely conceals the outrage at the outrageous.

 

[skooshtamart]

Much of what the dogs have submitted is not in the interests of some of these people and we can expect forces to rally against and discredit what has been proposed by obscuring it in the language of handouts, charity etc. Like most things, a clearer picture can be obtained by an examination of "cui bono".

So True

Perhaps we need to start using the term "fixture handouts". Only the clubs who receive these fixture charity understand the full benefits that can be leveraged from such arrangements.

If clubs had to pay a fee or bid for a fixture competitive advantage, it would be a reasonable method of determining the value of such an event.

 

[black pup]

Club to be congratulated, great thought and work put into this objective paper.

 

[dogwatch]

Good thinking re terminology, Skoosh. Put it in terms that they will understand. It's also a good retort if you are copping any flak on the main board.

The only problem with the auction system is that if it was actually done we would never be able to bid what Collingwood and Essendon can bid because they would get higher returns with their greater membership (and therefore could afford to bid higher). A bit like bidding for the Judds, Abletts and Clokes - only the rich can afford to bid, so the entrenched order gets locked in.

Better to base it on the previous year's performance as you suggested earlier.

 

[JJHunter]

I think interpreting what Gordon has submitted as asking for handouts is looking at it the wrong way.

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.