Football Dept Spend Capped @ $9.5Mill

[MightyHawks]

Some of that money went to pay outs I think.

So will future sacked coaches and assistant coaches wages be included in the new cap?

 

[AFLQLD]

The notion of equalisation is here to stay because it is the only sound, sustainable business model for the AFL. In sporting terms it might annoy some because it seems like a club should be able to make its own decisions and spend its own money to achieve sporting success. This may have been true before the game became a business but it will never, ever go back to being just a sport. It will always be a business, like it or not.

Like all businesses, the model has to be sustainable. While some parts of the operation (ie some clubs) may be less profitable, or even unprofitable, the business operation as a whole is stronger and more profitable by having them there and supporting them.

Sports all around the world face these issues. Pure cut-throat competitions with no rules to balance out the difference between the rich and poor teams are rare. Whether it be through drafts, salary caps, handicaps or any other way, ensuring the whole competition is sustainable matters. Too much financial power in too few hands simply leads to long term decline. Even that most uneven of all leagues, European football, uses relegation and promotion as the balancing mechanism to allow clubs to settle at the level suited to their financial capacity. The rise of the Man U's and Barcelona's in Europe is a direct outcome that dragged the richest clubs consistently to the top while those with little financial clout settled in lower leagues and rarely make it up to the rarified heights where the big boys play.

Without the history, numbers or desire for a relegation/promotion system, the AFL really has two choices: equalise the competition through financial means such as a spending cap or allow smaller clubs to slowly but surely fade into insignificance, whither away and die, at the top level at least. This second option though simply makes the whole business weaker. Ultimately, it is bad for the rich clubs as well.

Only equalisation of some variety gives a sporting administration the security of being able to sustain its business in the long term, because otherwise the rich will almost certainly get richer as they take the cream of TV, sponsorship, facilities, non-playing talent, media attention and more often than not, on-field success.

Plenty of supporters of rich clubs will not like it, but the AFL, if it is run by smart people, will be looking ten or twenty years down the track. The choice will be a vibrant competition in which many teams can compete and actually be competitive, even if some make little money for the organisation...or... a competition where a handful of rich clubs play largely against each other while a larger number of poor clubs struggle to merely survive.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[MightyHawks]

There's only one Tassie, and we already put two clubs there?

Actually 3.

St Kilda couldn't make a go of it remember...

Hawthorn approached Tassie in a completely different way to how North approached Sydney, Canberra, Gold Coast, Canberra and Tassie

 

[MightyHawks]

It's pretty simple to me. The richer clubs are not keen because effectively it means that their good decision making and investment props up their opposition. It's totally against the concept of competition. The reality of such a scheme is that the more they spend on their innovation, the more they prop up their opposition and the members won't be happy with that. The idea of a competition philosophically is to beat your opposition, not help them. Yes we want them to be strong but the measures reward mediocrity while punishing success. There can be no doubt that some clubs could simply rest on their laurels in the knowledge that they will be looked after. Surely it makes far more sense to remove the anti-competitive elements of the fixture and the crippling stadium deals than force clubs to spend supporters' and members' money on propping up the opposition!

An obvious thing to remove is the return fixture of the Carlton/Essendon/Collingwood cartel

The first match is worth more than the return encounter and other teams need home matches against those 3 teams more than those teams need it themselves

Certainly handy for Eddie to say to supporters... sign up as a Pies member and get home matches against Carlton, Essendon, Geelong & Hawthorn

 

[DivideandMultiply]

It is really goingg to help the league both in terms of equalisation and also saving every club a lot of money. Overnight for instance the Brisbane Lions will be profitable.

No, it is an unabashedly idiotic move. Only a certain % of football department staff and spending would be completely AFL specific.

They are hobbling the sport, to give a leg up to clubs whose issue, is the number in the Victorian market .

This will slow growth, innovation and the ability of the sport to retain the greatest non player talent.

There are plenty of options, but the AFL has chosen the worst.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Never ending money pits with hundred years of history and loyal fans who have fought hard to save their clubs.

As opposed to soulless franchises set up to expand their league.

WC have done more for the AFL, than the Bulldogs ever have.

Thats great, you have been around for longer, but WC are relevant to the national competition. From it's beginnings to current point.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Set up the future fund, gave some money to Collingwood to upgrade Olympic Park, Essendon to update Tulla etc.
Remember the AFL looks after the game throughout Australia not just the big boys but everyone down to the kids kicking the dew off of the grass every morning

No it doesn't, at least not in WA.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

the most disturbing news from this year is that clubs use pay 100% of the cap.

if a team needs a rebuild how exactly are they going to build their lists when paying spuds 100% of the cap?

 

[shintemaster]

Must have, we have won more since the draft came in (86) than your rabble has since forever. But you do have the shin boning spirit

Got ya. Leet mad skillz.

 

[ManOfClay]

Shame your loyal fans with all their awesome history cant be bothered buying memberships and actually turning up to games like those mean franchises huh?

And who says we don't? We've always had a smaller fanbase - it's just the way it is. But we're based in an important growth area for Melbourne and our membership continues to get stronger: we're in our best position now since we were a contender. With our Edgewater development finally back on track we'll be right money-wise in the future too if all goes to plan.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Country Zones ran for 20 years from 1967-1986...

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story

Theres a lag. Eighteen year old draftees still need time to mature.

1971 flag - five years after zoning started, zoned kids now up to 23-24 years of age
1991 flag - five years after zoning finished, players 23 and above are still zoned

 

[Probitas_]

Do you really think that's the case? Like there's actually a different mindset in a North supporter than a West Coast supporter that causes us to go, "bugger buying a membership, hey?" If I dare use a bit of logic, perhaps the poorer clubs have less members due to a being unable to capitalise on a period of dominance, having poor geographical location or being the center of a scandal in the public eye, among a plethora of potential reasons.

There's a number of people or factors you could place the blame on but the supporters aren't one of them. In North Melbourne's case, us supporters fought tooth and nail for our club and it's 140+ years of history in Melbourne and you want to label us lazy?

Yeah, nah. **** off.

Wasn't talking about your team. I have some amount of respect for what north have accomplished. Always manage to upright yourselves and do it without the pokies. So calm your tears and as you say '**** off'

 

[Probitas_]

And who says we don't? We've always had a smaller fanbase - it's just the way it is. But we're based in an important growth area for Melbourne and our membership continues to get stronger: we're in our best position now since we were a contender. With our Edgewater development finally back on track we'll be right money-wise in the future too if all goes to plan.

And clubs such as the eagles have been bailing you out for the last twenty years. If it wasn't for these 'franchises' your club probably wouldn't even exist, might want to consider that before you go sulking about your saviors.

 

[PieNSauce]

And clubs such as the eagles have been bailing you out for the last twenty years. If it wasn't for these 'franchises' your club probably wouldn't even exist, might want to consider that before you go sulking about your saviors.

lol. Given that your club definitely wouldn't exist if not for clubs like Footscray I find that an interesting comment. Never forget it was those clubs who voted to admit interstate sides.

 

[Probitas_]

lol. Given that your club definitely wouldn't exist if not for clubs like Footscray I find that an interesting comment. Never forget it was those clubs who voted to admit interstate sides.

They voted the ability to admit interstate sides because they needed bailing out, so yes that's exactly my point. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[PieNSauce]

They voted the ability to admit interstate sides because they needed bailing out, so yes that's exactly my point. Thanks for clarifying.

"Bailing out" is a red herring. The league needed to expand to ensure its future viability for sure but there were precious few clubs which actually needed "bailing out" as you put it. Let's not rewrite history now shall we.

 

[kranky al]

yeh i agree. lets disband the saints, doggies, melbourne, north melbourne. lets roll them into the pies, hawthorn, essendon, carlton, richmond, geelong. might need a bigger stadium than the G, can sell etihad when its purchased for $1 and distribute it among the remaining clubs. competition for sponsorship is smaller in victoria now too

ports struggling, lets roll them into adelaide. now adelaide has an entire state again.

maybe we take gold coasts list and roll into brisbane. lets role gws into sydney

see where this is going...

all ends up into a situation where the eagles competitive advantage against some clubs is significantly reduced

.


Ridiculous argument - lets compare states that have 2 clubs to a state that has more than any other professsional sporting code in the world...... Desperately try to conflate the two

Victoria is a state that permanently has a couple of clubs on a drip depending on their position on the ladder/ rebuilding timeframe


Too many clubs in melbourne - noone minds helping out a club in temporary trouble - its the fact that there are always going to be a couple of clubs in vic doing it tough because there is too many ****ing clubs - blind freddie can see that - his deaf mates hearing it and his dumb mate is trying to scream it. Export one to tassie and one to the nt.

If wa had 4 or more clubs id be saying the same - you see the idea floated every now and then for wa to have a third club - and i resist it like buggery - why dilute - why create a problem child - or in victorias case, why consistently enable them.

 

[kranky al]

"Bailing out" is a red herring. The league needed to expand to ensure its future viability for sure but there were precious few clubs which actually needed "bailing out" as you put it. Let's not rewrite history now shall we.

The vfl was broke - busted arse broke when we came in

 

[PieNSauce]

The vfl was broke - busted arse broke when we came in

It wasn't actually. There were a few clubs struggling but it was far from broke as a competition.

 

[Scodog10]

It wasn't actually. There were a few clubs struggling but it was far from broke as a competition.

I'm not so sure about that...

 

[BallaratBulldog]

Imo just fix the ****ing fixture and allow an equal salary cap. Allow the Dogs to play a game or two inner\outer West Melbourne for our target audience as well.

 

[PieNSauce]

I'm not so sure about that...

I suppose that may come down to definition but I certainly don't recall it being what I would describe as "broke"!

 

[Scodog10]

I suppose that may come down to definition but I certainly don't recall it being what I would describe as "broke"!

True it may, but I personally would have used broke as my definition (based on the literature I've read on it).

 

[PieNSauce]

True it may, but I personally would have used broke as my definition (based on the literature I've read on it).

Yep. Like I said, I guess it's in how you define it. I certainly don't disagree that it was not particularly healthy.

 

[Probitas_]

Yep. Like I said, I guess it's in how you define it. I certainly don't disagree that it was not particularly healthy.

Let's not rewrite history. You were broke.