Economic downturn will sink boot in to clubs

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Re: Economic downturn will sink book in to clubs

Ignoring all the problems with access and the actual condition of the ground itself. This will never happen IMO while Carlton are running the show down there.

Two things. The ground surface has always been fantastic. The stands have now been altered or demolished however.

Carlton are only leaseholders until 2031 or something. They can be bought out of their lease as they are never going to use the ground for anything but training in the future as they will be playing out of the bigger grounds.

 

[greenred]

Re: Economic downturn will sink book in to clubs

What is your point? Every club in the AFL is reliant on the AFL for its survival.

If you can't see the point, then there's really no point in spelling it out for you. The ignorance shown in your second sentence is what is responsible for the current plight of your club.

 

[hawker11]

Re: Economic downturn will sink book in to clubs

The AFL would.

The AFL would 'today' - but if the GFC related factors are introduced and there are a small number of clubs with their backs to wall without sponsors? I have no doubt that they would put a merger package on the table if the clubs had no option but to request it (in favour of dropping to the VFL).

Absolutely. I'd still prefer my clubs culture and heritage to remain intact before it became diluted by a relocation or merger.

How about you, what would you do in this instance?

It is a tough call - I would prefer a combination - at least with Melbourne your name is the city of the suburb your club represented (even better for north as they already have 'melbourne' within there name). Therefore if push came to shove I would prefer the merger - but would also want a Hawthorn Hawks operating in the VFL as the reserves side.

Naturally it makes me sick to think about that - and thankfully our club is not in a position to be making these decisions with a strong melbourne support base.

That's all that really matters. The governing body is an record as stating that 10 clubs in Victoria are essential.

Yes but what will their 'on-record' position be when if economic climate worsens and clubs cannot find sponsors? Working out the future draws will be a lot easier with an even number of clubs too...

 

[shintemaster]

Re: Economic downturn will sink book in to clubs

Hypothetically if the GFC bit as hard as the article claims, would you prefer to demote to the VFL as opposed to a Melbourne Kangaroos?

Maybe, but others might disagree. E.g. the Kangaroos would continue in the premier league as a melb based club wearing blue and white stripes in its away games...

Is that really a relevant point? The same arguments went around in circles a thousand times last year, use the search function if you're interested in those opinions. FWIW the concept that a poor global economy might make things hard for all clubs and especially those who are stretched isn't exactly a leap of inspiration.

I for one am not interested in your BS hypotheticals at this point, we've just covered this point 1 year ago and I think made it quite clear where we stand as a club. Take that as you please, but don't start rubbish arguments and hypotheticals that are rehashing old ground.

 

[hawker11]

Re: Economic downturn will sink book in to clubs

Is that really a relevant point? The same arguments went around in circles a thousand times last year, use the search function if you're interested in those opinions. FWIW the concept that a poor global economy might make things hard for all clubs and especially those who are stretched isn't exactly a leap of inspiration.

I for one am not interested in your BS hypotheticals at this point, we've just covered this point 1 year ago and I think made it quite clear where we stand as a club. Take that as you please, but don't start rubbish arguments and hypotheticals that are rehashing old ground.

It is entirely relevant given the subject of the thread and the context of the article it refers to. If you're not interested, simply don't read it.

 

[Big Scottknowsall]

Is the author saying that Essendon are the richest of those clubs listed, or from the whole competition?

Essendon are the most cash rich...i believe

 

[medusala]

Re: Economic downturn will sink book in to clubs

The AFL would.

North supporters of all people should know the AFL cant be trusted.

 

[worthogs]

Re: Economic downturn will sink book in to clubs

............
Naturally it makes me sick to think about that - and thankfully our club is not in a position to be making these decisions with a strong melbourne support base....../QUOTE]

But You were in that situation not so long ago so to have hawk supporters wind up the Kangas is a bit rich.

Demotion to a VFL or SANFL/WAFL etc is never an option as they are totally different comps, they would lose their AFL license and would never get back again. Demotion in this instance is extinsion of your AFL side.

Hypothetically what would you have done if the Hawks did Merge with Melbourne?

In huindsite what really sghould have happened is the Kangas should have merged with the Lions in 1996/97. Debts cleared and they would probably be a secure club now.

 

[hawker11]

Re: Economic downturn will sink book in to clubs

............
Naturally it makes me sick to think about that - and thankfully our club is not in a position to be making these decisions with a strong melbourne support base....../QUOTE]

But You were in that situation not so long ago so to have hawk supporters wind up the Kangas is a bit rich.

Demotion to a VFL or SANFL/WAFL etc is never an option as they are totally different comps, they would lose their AFL license and would never get back again. Demotion in this instance is extinsion of your AFL side.

Hypothetically what would you have done if the Hawks did Merge with Melbourne?

In huindsite what really sghould have happened is the Kangas should have merged with the Lions in 1996/97. Debts cleared and they would probably be a secure club now.

If you're referring to 1996, the club's supporter base were largely responsible for digging itself out of the debt that today sees us with a 40,000 strong membership base, state of the art facilities and excellent crowd levels. That, despite the AFL selling our home ground in 1999.

All Victorian clubs have had issues in past, but we are discussing today - and as the topic suggests - there are factors that may leave weak clubs in trouble. Absolutely nothing to do with what occured 1996 for any club.

 

[lacrow]

Personally, I think the AFL should be studying how the NFL runs its business. Although, perhaps they are already doing that (or have done it in the past). IMHO, the NFL is the most well-run sporting competition in the world. As far as I know, it has none of the problems associated with other major sports, such as baseball (where small market teams like Milwaukee cannot compete financially for talent).

The NFL has had the foresight to look at the long-term health of the entire league and therefore act accordingly. The owners have somehow come to the conclusion that long-term, what's good for the league is good for their teams. This is why they have such a strong revenue-sharing agreement. In addition, their marketing and promotion departments are top notch.

Now, that being said, I really don't understand all the bashing that goes on here for the clubs that get extra revenue from the league. The AFL is not one or two clubs, it is an entire league.

You need all the teams for it to function and IMHO the revenue from EVERYTHING should be collectivized and shared equally between the teams so that there is no prejudicing of the competition due to inequality of off-field conditions. At the end of the day we, as fans, are only concerned with what goes on at game time. I don't wanna watch a game between a super-rich Adelaide team who has bought all the best players and a pathetic Melbourne team who has no money and therefore can't field a decent squad. How does that benefit any of us as fans?

I mean, who really cares if Essendon has a lot of cash or sells more jerseys than North Melbourne? What I think most fans are really concerned with is "does my team have a shot at the flag this year?" The fight over which club is richer is

Now, you could argue that there are too many teams in Melbourne, but unfortunately, that's the way the competition was set up. Either you force some of the teams to move, which people don't seem to want to do (and which might not even make any difference monetarily if there aren't enough supporters wherever they end up), or you just accept the current situation and figure out a way to make sure that the games are good and interesting to the fans.

I am far from an expert on any of the AFL's issues (or even NFL's issues), but I don't think there is any other alternative and I think the current infighting over who's club has the biggest wad is pointless.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Essendon are the most cash rich...i believe

What do you base that on? Cash at bank and cash equivalents? Cash flow from normal operating activities?

In 2007 you had almost $4mil in cash and cash equivalents but cut that in half in 2008. Adelaide had about $7mil which now will be used to build their new facility.

West Coast would generate the biggest cash flow from normal footy activities, especially given their profits before distribution to the WAFC has been $4.5mil in 2008, $6.6mil in 2007 and $4.6mil in 2006. And that's after paying rent of $3mil, more than any other club, bar Freo and they have no income from a social venue ie pokies.

Essendon with net assets of $18.6mil has the highest net asset base.

 

[shintemaster]

Re: Economic downturn will sink book in to clubs

In hindsite what really sghould have happened is the Kangas should have merged with the Lions in 1996/97. Debts cleared and they would probably be a secure club now.

In some ways it's unfortunate. The clubs blocked this move because they didn't want a strong North / Fitzroy team. Despite the obvious benefits to them of having a team in Melbourne with a potential solid 40k crowdbase they were more concerned with creating a team that would beat them too often - so they created the Lions juggernaut of the early 00's. In that case they couldn't see the simple $$$ benefits for themselves when they had another high drawing team to play against.

Personally, I think the AFL should be studying how the NFL runs its business. Although, perhaps they are already doing that (or have done it in the past). IMHO, the NFL is the most well-run sporting competition in the world. As far as I know, it has none of the problems associated with other major sports, such as baseball (where small market teams like Milwaukee cannot compete financially for talent).

The NFL has had the foresight to look at the long-term health of the entire league and therefore act accordingly. The owners have somehow come to the conclusion that long-term, what's good for the league is good for their teams. This is why they have such a strong revenue-sharing agreement. In addition, their marketing and promotion departments are top notch.

Now, that being said, I really don't understand all the bashing that goes on here for the clubs that get extra revenue from the league. The AFL is not one or two clubs, it is an entire league.

You need all the teams for it to function and IMHO the revenue from EVERYTHING should be collectivized and shared equally between the teams so that there is no prejudicing of the competition due to inequality of off-field conditions. At the end of the day we, as fans, are only concerned with what goes on at game time. I don't wanna watch a game between a super-rich Adelaide team who has bought all the best players and a pathetic Melbourne team who has no money and therefore can't field a decent squad. How does that benefit any of us as fans?

I mean, who really cares if Essendon has a lot of cash or sells more jerseys than North Melbourne? What I think most fans are really concerned with is "does my team have a shot at the flag this year?" The fight over which club is richer is

Now, you could argue that there are too many teams in Melbourne, but unfortunately, that's the way the competition was set up. Either you force some of the teams to move, which people don't seem to want to do (and which might not even make any difference monetarily if there aren't enough supporters wherever they end up), or you just accept the current situation and figure out a way to make sure that the games are good and interesting to the fans.

I am far from an expert on any of the AFL's issues (or even NFL's issues), but I don't think there is any other alternative and I think the current infighting over who's club has the biggest wad is pointless.

Top post. Personally I hope that the AFL at least has a long term plan to try and equalise the worst of the inequities. ie. Fixture, TV exposure etc, personally I would like to go back to worrying about ON FIELD only. For that to have a chance of working we need to head towards a proper rolling draw at some point or else a divisional system. It seems strange to have all this effort put into tweaking drafting and priorities to make clubs 'more equal' yet the overall system is flawed. I have no doubts that the way the competition is structured at the moment is financially for the betterment of the majority of clubs, my concern is that in the long term this isn't the proper way to go about it. It would be nice if in ten years a team could win a Premiership after playing a season on the same terms as every other. My worry is that the AFL will only ever be concerned with making more money or expanding the competition. The same shortsightedness that affects the rules committee approach could cause real issues for the competition in the long term.

 

[Eagle87]

Personally, I think the AFL should be studying how the NFL runs its business. Although, perhaps they are already doing that (or have done it in the past). IMHO, the NFL is the most well-run sporting competition in the world. As far as I know, it has none of the problems associated with other major sports, such as baseball (where small market teams like Milwaukee cannot compete financially for talent).

The NFL has had the foresight to look at the long-term health of the entire league and therefore act accordingly. The owners have somehow come to the conclusion that long-term, what's good for the league is good for their teams. This is why they have such a strong revenue-sharing agreement. In addition, their marketing and promotion departments are top notch.

Now, that being said, I really don't understand all the bashing that goes on here for the clubs that get extra revenue from the league. The AFL is not one or two clubs, it is an entire league.

You need all the teams for it to function and IMHO the revenue from EVERYTHING should be collectivized and shared equally between the teams so that there is no prejudicing of the competition due to inequality of off-field conditions. At the end of the day we, as fans, are only concerned with what goes on at game time. I don't wanna watch a game between a super-rich Adelaide team who has bought all the best players and a pathetic Melbourne team who has no money and therefore can't field a decent squad. How does that benefit any of us as fans?

I mean, who really cares if Essendon has a lot of cash or sells more jerseys than North Melbourne? What I think most fans are really concerned with is "does my team have a shot at the flag this year?" The fight over which club is richer is

Now, you could argue that there are too many teams in Melbourne, but unfortunately, that's the way the competition was set up. Either you force some of the teams to move, which people don't seem to want to do (and which might not even make any difference monetarily if there aren't enough supporters wherever they end up), or you just accept the current situation and figure out a way to make sure that the games are good and interesting to the fans.

I am far from an expert on any of the AFL's issues (or even NFL's issues), but I don't think there is any other alternative and I think the current infighting over who's club has the biggest wad is pointless.

But the NFL doesnt have many multi-team cities (New York) and it has some weird stuff - no team in LA - its not perfect.

On the basis of "who cares about the cash etc" tone of your email, you still need a proper business model. No-one alive outside of Melbourne argues that 10 teams in the one market is the ideal model and no amount of "we are all in it together" gets away from that... I mean, based on your view, we could put 6 teams in Sydney and share all revenue equally and "she'll be right" - or alternatively, such a silly business model could break the league... thats the point, the excess teams in Melbourne could actually be a millstone for the AFL ... so its not a case of get rid of Melbourne teams cos we are mean or greedy but rather because their continuing inviability could be a fundamental problem that hurts the league ...



On your basis, we could just put 6 teams in Sydney and everyone can share profits

 

[shintemaster]

On your basis, we could just put 6 teams in Sydney and everyone can share profits

I think you're being a bit disingenious here. I think you know very well that there is a big difference between those two scenarios. There is an established market and supporter base in Melbourne already. There are teams that may not be financial juggernauts however they are far from being a massive drain on the system.

Until such time as the AFL is run on an equitable basis it will be very difficult to show exactly how sustainable each individual team may be. Either way, 6 teams in Sydney is a ridiculous comparison.

 

[RUNVS]

I am of the firm belief that 9 clubs in Melbourne is far too many and is holding the game back. Really we need to see 4 teams merge into 2 or to have 2 clubs die outright.

 

[The Kipster]

Re: Economic downturn will sink book in to clubs

............



In huindsite what really sghould have happened is the Kangas should have merged with the Lions in 1996/97. Debts cleared and they would probably be a secure club now.

in hindsite North should of taken the GC carrot dangled in front of them by the AFL.
Regardless of the Vics whinging and whining about there loss of home games...if they still exist with 2 bases one on the GC and the other at Arden St, then why the **** not....it is only pig headedness that stopped that deal and now they are in shite further...
If teams fold through ignorance and 'sticking there collective heads in the sand' then bad luck, no sympathy here...

The Hawks did what we had to do and now have a healthy balance sheet and a flag to boot....

 

[RUNVS]

- 1 Melbourne club relocates to Tasmania
- 2 Melbourne clubs merge into 1

That will leave the AFL in a stronger position as now there will only be 7 AFL clubs in Melbourne instead of 9.

 

[MaxHunt]

Re: Economic downturn will sink book in to clubs

in hindsite North should of taken the GC carrot dangled in front of them by the AFL.
Regardless of the Vics whinging and whining about there loss of home games...if they still exist with 2 bases one on the GC and the other at Arden St, then why the **** not....it is only pig headedness that stopped that deal and now they are in shite further...

Somewhat agree here. As an eagles support living in Melbourne, i get to see them play about 6 times a year live and every other game live on fox/free tv. I can't see why a club couldn't play 9 games in Melbourne, albeit all away games, and another 6/7 from another base i.e. Hobart and the rest interstate to ensure survival.

If teams fold through ignorance and 'sticking there collective heads in the sand' then bad luck, no sympathy here...

The Hawks did what we had to do and now have a healthy balance sheet and a flag to boot....

Totally disagree here. This is pig headedness. The league would not be the same if any club folds.

 

[RUNVS]

Re: Economic downturn will sink book in to clubs

Somewhat agree here. As an eagles support living in Melbourne, i get to see them play about 6 times a year live and every other game live on fox/free tv. I can't see why a club couldn't play 9 games in Melbourne, albeit all away games, and another 6/7 from another base i.e. Hobart and the rest interstate to ensure survival.

Agreed. There are still plenty of South Melbourne supporters in Melbourne who rock up to Swans games and support them even though the club relocated over a quarter of a century ago.

 

[Moo]

Personally, I think the AFL should be studying how the NFL runs its business. Although, perhaps they are already doing that (or have done it in the past). IMHO, the NFL is the most well-run sporting competition in the world. As far as I know, it has none of the problems associated with other major sports, such as baseball (where small market teams like Milwaukee cannot compete financially for talent).

The NFL has had the foresight to look at the long-term health of the entire league and therefore act accordingly. The owners have somehow come to the conclusion that long-term, what's good for the league is good for their teams. This is why they have such a strong revenue-sharing agreement. In addition, their marketing and promotion departments are top notch.

I agree - how long do you think it would take the NFL to force the sale and movement of clubs into a broader market place?

I am guessing 1 season and you would have privately owned teams in NZ, Tassie, Sydney and whoever else had cash.

I think you're being a bit disingenious here. I think you know very well that there is a big difference between those two scenarios. There is an established market and supporter base in Melbourne already. There are teams that may not be financial juggernauts however they are far from being a massive drain on the system.

Until such time as the AFL is run on an equitable basis it will be very difficult to show exactly how sustainable each individual team may be. Either way, 6 teams in Sydney is a ridiculous comparison.

It is called a hyperbole Shinte.

Plus define massive drain?

Tens of millions of dollars being poured into an established and overcrowded market place is crazy.

The fact is - there is always going to be 1 or 2 Melb clubs in trouble as there are too many Melb clubs. Less teams will make it easier for the ones who remain to be viable.

With GC coming in (which is a good move) and I really hope they don't go ahead with WS ....remove 1 club from the picture and then sit on your hands for 5 years and see how the other clubs are travelling.

It is painful but I am certain I will see the loss of 1 more Melb club before I die.

 

[shintemaster]

in hindsite North should of taken the GC carrot dangled in front of them by the AFL.
Regardless of the Vics whinging and whining about there loss of home games...if they still exist with 2 bases one on the GC and the other at Arden St, then why the **** not....it is only pig headedness that stopped that deal and now they are in shite further...
If teams fold through ignorance and 'sticking there collective heads in the sand' then bad luck, no sympathy here...

If you knew what you were talking about you'd know that the AFL knocked back this option not North. LOL, we are far from 'in the shite further'. Just because there is an article in the paper we are not suddenly worse off than we were 1 year ago.

It is called a hyperbole Shinte.

Actually it's called a crappy argument. Only someone of your superior reasoning would argue that it is a useful point.

 

[Pessimistic]

Greater melbourne will grow in population by nearly 2 adelaides in 30 years.

Why not stay where the population will be

 

[sherrinorburley]

Re: Economic downturn will sink book in to clubs

in hindsite North should of taken the GC carrot dangled in front of them by the AFL.

The AFL should have used that carrot to pay the Bulldogs, Melbournes, North Melbournes and possibly 2 or 3 more teams debts, have change and allow/support Tasmania in the comp. And still have millions in the kitty. Which they(AFL) (Thanks to the clubs) have.

 

[RUNVS]

Re: Economic downturn will sink book in to clubs

The AFL should have used that carrot to pay the Bulldogs, Melbournes, North Melbournes and possibly 2 or 3 more teams debts, have change and allow/support Tasmania in the comp. And still have millions in the kitty. Which they(AFL) (Thanks to the clubs) have.

Why should the AFL have to use its money to pay off your teams debt?

You dont seem to get it that the competition would be healthier without your club. They are merely draining money from the competition which could/should be used elsewhere.

To all North Melbourne supports "What does your club ADD to the competition"?

 

[sherrinorburley]

Re: Economic downturn will sink book in to clubs

Why should the AFL have to use its money to pay off your teams debt?

You dont seem to get it that the competition would be healthier without your club. They are merely draining money from the competition which could/should be used elsewhere.

To all North Melbourne supports "What does your club ADD to the competition"?

Well they were willing to do that and more last year with the GC BS fiasco.

Where do you think the AFL get there money from? Certainly not from Sydney. Glad you mentioned the drain of a potential West Sydney ...err drain.

You have absolutely no idea.