equalisation fund - suck on it Joffa

[Cyclops]

I'm very happy to have the Pies prop up the poorer sides, even the ones who beat us in Grand finals.

However I wouldn't mind if there was some footy benefit for being the best drawing club in the caper. Maybe pre-season draft picks could be in order of membership or gate takings?

 

[morgoth]

nah

No Cyclops, just some recognition would be nice.

As for your Grayham, the reason TV rights are not in there is that their are no break-up figures. Channel 10 loses money broadcasting live Sydney games (remember that they wanted to drop/delay coverage at one stage).

To get an idea of who rates all you need to do is look who gets the most Friday night games and Sunday afternoon. We can't get a true picture on the Swans simply cos it is a contractual obligation that your games get broadcast for the 'good' of the game.

We both know Sydney people only watch when Sydney is winning. Vic, SA, WA, Tas watch regardelss. They are the cash cows feding the growth (QLD, NSW) markets.

 

[Navy Master]

Originally posted by morgoth
MELBOURNE (276) 343 67
GEELONG (216) 343 127
ST KILDA (215) 343 128
WSTRN BLDGS (197) 343 146
KANGAROOS (172) 343 170

bye-bye... time for the superleague

Originally posted by Joffaboy
Why Carlton and Richmond get them is absolutely beyond me.

I almost agree with richmond... but Carlton? Get a clue... as someone else has said, 33,000 members even the year after a spoon... never ever saw the saints do that, and they've had more than enough chances to do so...

And what advantages are you talking about? We only get home game against Collingwood and Essendon (AFL made us play our home against Hawthorn at Princes), and no home game against Richmond, no public holiday games... St Kilda got home games against Carlton, Essendon, Hawthorn at the MCG, and a public holiday home game against Richmond... And then you get your pathetic handout, Stop your complaining

 

[Joffaboy]

Re: Re: Re: equalisation fund - suck on it Joffa

Originally posted by MarkT
Nice arguments of conveniance Joffa.

I'd love to see your figures for that fact. I'm sure grayham could help you with them. Just give me the profit one club gets in excess of what they would get without the ANZAC day advantage and then work out what the addittional revenue to the equalisation fund is as well as caterring and venue contracts. We'll leave broadcast $ out of it for the sake of ease.

And whats wrong with arguments of convieniance MarkT?

Joffa, I don't doubt that ANZAC Day is advantagous but it is hardly the ogre you make it oput to be or the unjustifiable rort you wish it to be.

How do they prove that? 244k aint lose change anyway. That's clear profit sacrificed not just revenue.

Grahams point above I think is more than valid re Anzac Day

Deends what you call direct. By what appears to be your narrow definition, there is no direct advantage given to anyone nor direct funding of anyone. Do you write the AFL's lines? I doub't the AFL directly provide cash for any blockbuster they just provide the mechanism to let the clubs make the $.
Mark, this is excatly my point. Morgoth was spouting crap about the Magpies propping up St.Kilda. I asked how Collingwood directly propped up St.Kilda, and he comes back all triumphant with AFL equalisation information. This is not one team directly funding another team, this is AFL distribution. As non Vics have pointed out non Vic teams prop up Vic team using these narroe statistics.

Of course the AFL doesn't directly fund "blockbusters", however they put the advantages in place for the favoured teams to make the money from blockbusters.

My question was in response to Morgoths arrogant trolling and asked a simple question. Give me sources of direct funding from Collingwood to St.Kilda. I have yet to see this charity shown to me.

Pretty sililar to equalisation except that with equalisation the recipient club does not have to a single thing. In fact the less they do the more they get.

Not correct, while the advantaged four make money from the gate receipts of the non home team supporters, the other less favoured Melbourne based teams have to take up the slack and play lesser drawing teams as home games. These teams are usually from interstate, thereby consigning the home team to a lesser profit in gate receipts.
If you are going to be parisiticle on the competition and get favoured draws at the expense of the other Melbourne teams, the least you could do is pay the pittance the AFL asks you to in equalisation. In fact it should be much much more.


And people wonder why the competition is struggling to fund itself.

Onl;y the supporters of the advantaged four would wonder. The others have to sell home games, move them interstate, and virtually sell their dignity so the AFL can keep the draw rigged in favour of 1/4 of the league.

 

[grayham]

Re: nah

Originally posted by morgoth
No Cyclops, just some recognition would be nice.

As for your Grayham, the reason TV rights are not in there is that their are no break-up figures. Channel 10 loses money broadcasting live Sydney games (remember that they wanted to drop/delay coverage at one stage).

To get an idea of who rates all you need to do is look who gets the most Friday night games and Sunday afternoon. We can't get a true picture on the Swans simply cos it is a contractual obligation that your games get broadcast for the 'good' of the game.

We both know Sydney people only watch when Sydney is winning. Vic, SA, WA, Tas watch regardelss. They are the cash cows feding the growth (QLD, NSW) markets.

Morgoth, please try to keep up. You are talking about selective last years quotes.

Since then:
1) Every Swans AFL game has been televised live.
2) Swans prime time telecasts are up 33% on last year.
3) Media experts estimate Sydney accounts for 20% of all broadcast revenue.

 

[MarkT]

Re: Re: Re: Re: equalisation fund - suck on it Joffa

Originally posted by grayham
Why leave the broadcast $ out of it ? They are one of the biggest slices of revenue for these marque games.

Nice argument of conveniance Mark?

Argument of convenience?
I was being lenient. Bring it all in if you want. I'm pretty sure Ed who as everyone knows controls Ch.9 paid a truckload for Friday night games involving Collingwood. I'm also pretty sure the Saints didn't feature highly in negotiations.

As far as broadcast rights go, I ma more than happy for the AFL to negotiate the package deal and split the proceeds. Of course we could allow each club to negotiate their own deal for home game broadcast rights. That is the real test of worth. It would be the certain death of a large number of clubs though.

 

[MarkT]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: equalisation fund - suck on it Joffa

Originally posted by Porthos
I'll have you know that Port gave up $3000 to equalization last year

Lucky they had a home game or two against Collingwood then eh?

BTW I hear the senate passed the sandwich and milk shake tax cuts. Is this the Pie and flat light beer equalisations contribution?

 

[Navy Master]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: equalisation fund - suck on it Joffa

Originally posted by MarkT
As far as broadcast rights go, I ma more than happy for the AFL to negotiate the package deal and split the proceeds. Of course we could allow each club to negotiate their own deal for home game broadcast rights. That is the real test of worth. It would be the certain death of a large number of clubs though.

Exactly, and if the clubs kept all their gate receipts, then you would see how much your club relies and the big 6 (Adelaide, Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Hawthorn and West Coast)

 

[MarkT]

Re: Re: nah

Originally posted by grayham
Morgoth, please try to keep up. You are talking about selective last years quotes.

Since then:
1) Every Swans AFL game has been televised live.
2) Swans prime time telecasts are up 33% on last year.
3) Media experts estimate Sydney accounts for 20% of all broadcast revenue.

FFS grayham. Firstly the contract was negotiated before thios year so one paid anything for some transient Swans resurgance. Secondly, 33% up on dismal to the point where the network didn't what the obligation is better than nothing but TV networks pay for guranteed results. Thirdly these Media experts are how many in number and base their figures on what exactly? Morgoth has quoted the most up to date and accurate figures and you quote some theor you posted a few weeks back by some bloke who has no backing or evidence. You don't even know on what basis the 20% was arrived at yet you treat it like gospal.

 

[MarkT]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: equalisation fund - suck on it Joffa

Originally posted by Navy Master
Exactly, and if the clubs kept all their gate receipts, then you would see how much your club relies and the big 6 (Adelaide, Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Hawthorn and West Coast)

I put this down to drugs.

Mate my club is the the big 1.

 

[Portia]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: equalisation fund - suck on it Joffa

Originally posted by MarkT
Lucky they had a home game or two against Collingwood then eh?

You're just lucky you didn't have a home game against us, or you probably wouldn't be #1 on that list.

 

[Grumpy Bum]

Re: Re: Re: equalisation fund - suck on it Joffa

Originally posted by MarkT
Nice arguments of conveniance Joffa.



Joffa, I don't doubt that ANZAC Day is advantagous but it is hardly the ogre you make it oput to be or the unjustifiable rort you wish it to be.

I think Joffa would argue that without ANZAC day Coll v Ess would not draw large crowds. Unfortunately for him Coll v Ess v Carl v Rich have always drawn large crowds no matter when they play. Its called attracting a crowd. Something St Kilda have gone out of their way to avoid doing over the years, through their own fault. Does anyone really think that St Kilda v anyone on ANZAC day would pull a bigger crowd than Coll v Ess say on the 27th of April on a Saturday afternoon. He says welfare, I say drawing power. Maybe they should do something about getting some drawing power of their own.

Better still maybe they should forgo any benefits of the equalisation funding and see where they really stand in the great scheme of things.

 

[grayham]

Re: Re: Re: nah

Originally posted by MarkT
FFS grayham. Firstly the contract was negotiated before thios year so one paid anything for some transient Swans resurgance. Secondly, 33% up on dismal to the point where the network didn't what the obligation is better than nothing but TV networks pay for guranteed results. Thirdly these Media experts are how many in number and base their figures on what exactly? Morgoth has quoted the most up to date and accurate figures and you quote some theor you posted a few weeks back by some bloke who has no backing or evidence. You don't even know on what basis the 20% was arrived at yet you treat it like gospal.

FFS Mark, you cant see the wood for the trees.

Channel 10 have shown every game live, against the gate. Get that through your thick head. Kind of makes a mockery of Morgoths assertions.

And my 3 point assertions are facts. thats F.A.C.T.S. (1) and (2) are indisputable. And for 3, name a media expert who disagrees?

 

[grayham]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: equalisation fund - suck on it Joffa

Originally posted by MarkT
Argument of convenience?
I was being lenient. Bring it all in if you want. I'm pretty sure Ed who as everyone knows controls Ch.9 paid a truckload for Friday night games involving Collingwood. I'm also pretty sure the Saints didn't feature highly in negotiations.

As far as broadcast rights go, I ma more than happy for the AFL to negotiate the package deal and split the proceeds. Of course we could allow each club to negotiate their own deal for home game broadcast rights. That is the real test of worth. It would be the certain death of a large number of clubs though.

Why dont you simple swap St Kilda for Collingwood in friday night games, blockbusters, etc, and then see which team gets the bigger sponsorship deals, attendences, and broadcast rights ?

 

[Falchoon]

Re: Re: yep

Originally posted by MarkT
I found that surprising too. IMO there is a real and delberate missleading of the memebers here. The AFL and all clubs encourage memberships for all sorts of valid reasons but one that is definately exposed is the all the money goes to the club line.

This was fairly well advertised re the Adelaide situation. 45000 reserved seats and no gate takings means they were taking from the equalisation fund rather than contributing, with a full stadium.

 

[MarkT]

Re: Re: Re: Re: equalisation fund - suck on it Joffa

Originally posted by Joffaboy
And whats wrong with arguments of convieniance MarkT?

Bluey & co love 'em. No BF without 'em.

Originally posted by Joffaboy
Grahams point above I think is more than valid re Anzac Day

Fistly I don't follow but if you are relyingh on grayhams point then I guess I'm not surprised. Which point proves what? TV? Don't follow.

Originally posted by Joffaboy
Mark, this is excatly my point. Morgoth was spouting crap about the Magpies propping up St.Kilda. I asked how Collingwood directly propped up St.Kilda, and he comes back all triumphant with AFL equalisation information. This is not one team directly funding another team, this is AFL distribution. As non Vics have pointed out non Vic teams prop up Vic team using these narroe statistics.

Of course the AFL doesn't directly fund "blockbusters", however they put the advantages in place for the favoured teams to make the money from blockbusters.

All that means is that Collingwood AND others prob up St.Kilda AND others. You can hide behind semantics to win an argument with Morgith on a technicality if you like but don't go telling Carlton suppoerters like Deej not to hide behind a burden of proof for various offenses with SC rort issues. You can argue how direct taking from one club's revenue base and distribution to anothers either sinularly or on group basis but it dioesn't change the facts or the basic truth behind what was claimed and demonstrated.

Just conceed the issue gracefully.

Originally posted by Joffaboy
My question was in response to Morgoths arrogant trolling and asked a simple question. Give me sources of direct funding from Collingwood to St.Kilda. I have yet to see this charity shown to me.

Well I can't see Morgoth's arrogant troll being and more arrogant or tollish than you sig or you clams that Collingwood get charity by earning moey from their supporters while rasing some for every other club below break even. I don't anything for that but some perspective would be a nice change.

As for direct assistance, we gave you the big Monkey. What more could you ask for. Of course with a little more foresight you could have played him for 90 odd more games and you might have snaffled his 27 kids under the father / whole frecken tribe of scarey ratbags rule.

Originally posted by Joffaboy
Not correct, while the advantaged four make money from the gate receipts of the non home team supporters, the other less favoured Melbourne based teams have to take up the slack and play lesser drawing teams as home games. These teams are usually from interstate, thereby consigning the home team to a lesser profit in gate receipts.
If you are going to be parisiticle on the competition and get favoured draws at the expense of the other Melbourne teams, the least you could do is pay the pittance the AFL asks you to in equalisation. In fact it should be much much more.

Given the system we operate under I am not complaining about the equalisation issue - just your denial. Also you assertions without any figures.

I have only 1 comment on the whole issue that is relevant IMO. If you did a truely fair draw the Saints would be no better off and Collingwood would be no worse off. That's only my opinion because there is no data on it but if Collingwood played with a random draw and could play all their home games at their home ground - ie the MCG - then we would make a very similar profit to what we do now. What would happen though IMO is that equalisation money would reduce overall and broadcast rights would fall and we would see the end of a few clubs.

TV stations want gurantees if they are going to pay the big bucks.

Also FWIW the advantaged 4 as you put it should extend to the WA and SA teams who also benefit from the rigged draw.

Originally posted by Joffaboy
Onl;y the supporters of the advantaged four would wonder. The others have to sell home games, move them interstate, and virtually sell their dignity so the AFL can keep the draw rigged in favour of 1/4 of the league.

Sound very much like the situation your club was in before the draw was rigged, before there was an AFL and before you didn't pay Barry Breen full tote odds for his long career after kicking the winning point in your only flag. It's good to have excuse though because then you don't have to change as much.

FFS Joffa, the Saints should be contributing to equalisation in a big way. They have a large supporer base and they have a huge local area full of businesses. They have no cash because they have been so poorly run for so long. They have an opportunity to do something for themselves now with a good squad and finally an attempt to sqare off against their goasts. Finally the Siants have admitted their failings and are tyring to do something about them. If they get on with that instead of going down the excuses and hard done by line they will get real momentum on and off the field. Unlike some other clubs they have the numbers to really make a leap from perrenial strugglers to a club with a big future short and long term. Don't complain about the train get the F**k on it.

 

[MarkT]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: equalisation fund - suck on it Joffa

Originally posted by Porthos
You're just lucky you didn't have a home game against us, or you probably wouldn't be #1 on that list.

Interesting though. I think a home game v Port might fill the G. Wanna sell one? We'll double your 3k?

 

[Ausgard]

Collingwood contributes money

North Melbourne contributes spirit, passion, and a never say die attitude.

Even-Stevens I say

 

[Falchoon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: equalisation fund - suck on it Joffa

Originally posted by Grumpy Bum
I think Joffa would argue that without ANZAC day Coll v Ess would not draw large crowds. Unfortunately for him Coll v Ess v Carl v Rich have always drawn large crowds no matter when they play. Its called attracting a crowd. Something St Kilda have gone out of their way to avoid doing over the years, through their own fault. Does anyone really think that St Kilda v anyone on ANZAC day would pull a bigger crowd than Coll v Ess say on the 27th of April on a Saturday afternoon. He says welfare, I say drawing power. Maybe they should do something about getting some drawing power of their own.

Better still maybe they should forgo any benefits of the equalisation funding and see where they really stand in the great scheme of things.

The Saints aren't saying they would pull a bigger crowd, they would achieve a greater percentage lift over their regular crowd. All things being equal a Saints v Demons match would bring a greater percentage increase in pure profit than would a Pies/Dons game.

Would the combined totals be any different if the Saints v Dees and the Pies v Dons games were swapped. I'd argue no.


Victorian Anzac day games

St Kilda v Blues 1993 - 51211 at Waverley
St Kilda v Blues 1992 - 34784 at Princes (Sellout)
St Kilda v Dons 1988 - 31679 at Moorabbin (Sellout) I got in at half time


It's not the size of the crowd but the increase.

 

[MarkT]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: equalisation fund - suck on it Joffa

Originally posted by grayham
Why dont you simple swap St Kilda for Collingwood in friday night games, blockbusters, etc, and then see which team gets the bigger sponsorship deals, attendences, and broadcast rights ?

Funnily enough grayham Collingwood got bigger everything than St.Kilda before there even were Friday night games. In fact COllingwood are on Friday nights because they are Collingwood. The club sells the advertising for the network not the other way around.

 

[MarkT]

Re: Re: Re: Re: nah

Originally posted by grayham
FFS Mark, you cant see the wood for the trees.

Channel 10 have shown every game live, against the gate. Get that through your thick head. Kind of makes a mockery of Morgoths assertions.

And my 3 point assertions are facts. thats F.A.C.T.S. (1) and (2) are indisputable. And for 3, name a media expert who disagrees?

I doubt any media expert has done any study, including yours. Nevertheless:
Eddie McCollingwood.

 

[Grumpy Bum]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: equalisation fund - suck on it Joffa

Originally posted by Falchoon
The Saints aren't saying they would pull a bigger crowd, they would achieve a greater percentage lift over their regular crowd. All things being equal a Saints v Demons match would bring a greater percentage increase in pure profit than would a Pies/Dons game.

Would the combined totals be any different if the Saints v Dees and the Pies v Dons games were swapped. I'd argue no.


Victorian Anzac day games

St Kilda v Blues 1993 - 51211 at Waverley
St Kilda v Blues 1992 - 34784 at Princes (Sellout)
St Kilda v Dons 1988 - 31679 at Moorabbin (Sellout) I got in at half time


It's not the size of the crowd but the increase.

Well if you are not going to pull the biggest crowd, how can you expect to play? Do you think the AFL want one of their signiture days attended by 50 000 or 85 000 plus. I know if I owned the business, which one I would want. Until you realise that this is a commercial enterprise aimed at extracting the maximum benefit from every opportunity, then you are going to be stuck in the "why don't they" mode.

The only way you'll get top billing is if your club gets its act together. Who knows, they may be on the way. And when and if you do reach that market potential, I'd like to see which way your arguments go then. The above figures you quote don't exactly fill me with awe. The 1993 crown was at a ground that held 77000, yet you only got 50 odd thou. I've been there when the estimate was over 94 000. Common denominator......Collingwood. Why do you think the AFL wants Collingwood and essendon to play these big games? Exposure and money.

 

[MarkT]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: equalisation fund - suck on it Joffa

Originally posted by Falchoon
It's not the size of the crowd but the increase.

No it's $ profits and TV demand. I don't particularly like it, but that is what the AFL has tied the destiny of the competition to.

 

[Navy Master]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: equalisation fund - suck on it Joffa

Originally posted by Falchoon
Victorian Anzac day games

St Kilda v Blues 1993 - 51211 at Waverley
St Kilda v Blues 1992 - 34784 at Princes (Sellout)
St Kilda v Dons 1988 - 31679 at Moorabbin (Sellout)

The ANZAC Day Matches... should not be exclusively for Collingwood & Essendon... there is no real reason why it should be exclusively theres during the day at the MCG

 

[Navy Master]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: equalisation fund - suck on it Joffa

Originally posted by Grumpy Bum
Why do you think the AFL wants Collingwood and essendon to play these big games? Exposure and money.

Why cant a Carlton, Hawthorn or even poor old Richmond get in on the act?? Im sure they would still 90,000 on ANZAC Day, especially Carlton