Football Dept Spend Capped @ $9.5Mill

[PieNSauce]

Let's not rewrite history. You were broke.

Let's not talk Bovine Excrement! I most certainly was not!

 

[greennick]

have you got any examples of this occurring?

Yep, for example, our draw sucks. All the time, but lets look at this year. We only play one home game against a local team. We have 10 interstate games, even the Melbourne teams that complain about it get 5 at most. We have 8 Sunday games, just 3 Sat night games and 1 Fri night game. And we never get to play the big drawing clubs at home, with only Collingwood and Richmond this year. We play all the crappy drawing teams, like Gold Coast, Melbourne, North, St Kilda, Dogs and Port at home.

Oh how much would Melbourne, North and the Dogs whinge about that draw!

 

[greennick]

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

I disagree with this for one main reason. It isn't equalisation, it is subsidisation. Equalisation implies the clubs will end up on equal footing, they won't. There will be some sort of tax on richer clubs that is paid to poorer clubs, but it won't be equal. Or they may look at bringing more revenues into the shared revenue pool like many of the US sports have. Essentially, the richer clubs and their supporters will end up subsidising the poorer clubs with less supporters. However, there will still be rich and poor clubs, this won't be some socialist utopia.

 

[MarkT2]

Let's not rewrite history. You were broke.

Rewrite History? That's exactly what some WA and for that matter SA punters have done to the extent that a lot now believe it - without any factual backup.
A few clubs lost money through poor managment (mine included) which was driven in some cases (eg mine) by transfer fees which were then abolished. However all the clubs had a massive asset - being their right to participate in the comepition. This is what was then sold at a discount to the new entrants. The comptition owned VFL Park which then returned a $2m dividend to the clubs - new entrants included as well as providing some further financial strength to the competition as well as facilitating the Docklands deal wich see the clubs via the AFL having equity in that stadium.

 

[cammo78]

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

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

What's your point?

Hawthorn won five flags during that time - while Carlton, Richmond, Hawthorn and North Melbourne won every VFL premiership between 1967 and 1983, a period of dominance not known in any other era, as strong country zones gave these clubs lists more powerful than any club could build without zoning.

 

[Probitas_]

Rewrite History? That's exactly what some WA and for that matter SA punters have done to the extent that a lot now believe it - without any factual backup.
A few clubs lost money through poor managment (mine included) which was driven in some cases (eg mine) by transfer fees which were then abolished. However all the clubs had a massive asset - being their right to participate in the comepition. This is what was then sold at a discount to the new entrants. The comptition owned VFL Park which then returned a $2m dividend to the clubs - new entrants included as well as providing some further financial strength to the competition as well as facilitating the Docklands deal wich see the clubs via the AFL having equity in that stadium.

It was a friendly jibe at piensauce for using the same phrase half a page ago. Other than that I don't even know what your point is. You can word it however you want, your broke ass league needed.money, we provided it.

 

[ManOfClay]

Yes West Coast are the league's saviors.

 

[ManOfClay]

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.

Don't worry, he's just a lazy arrogant troll.

Dogs supporters did the same but apparently we're lazy too.

 

[Slax]

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?

This is the problem I've always had. Look at a Melbourne of the last couple of years' there is no way they should've been paying 80% of the cap given the quality of players they have. Then on top of it we get the AFLPA complaining that they aren't getting enough money.

 

[kranky al]

Yes West Coast are the league's saviors.

They pretty much were - i think there was 6 clubs that were completely financially insolvent from memory - and the vfl had no money to give - attendances were down hugely - something in the order of 20000 per round if memory serves me correctly - a big payout from the eagles solved thise woes - 4 miilion dollars isnt a lot now but i believe the largest debt by a club back then wa 300k and the smallest around 30k - so the entry of the eagles was enough to pay the lot basically.

Interesting trying to google details on it - there isnt a lot to look at - i can find a report that is around 1985 detailing some of this but it took some searching - it appears to have disappeared - glossed over


You vics must hate the fact that whenever your broke you have to come cap in hand to us

 

[kranky al]

Don't worry, he's just a lazy arrogant troll.

Dogs supporters did the same but apparently we're lazy too.

He actually specifically refuted this a few comments ago

 

[Probitas_]

Stating fact is trolling.

 

[kranky al]

http://www.afana.com/drupal5/wikis/faq/footy_faq_what_australian_football_league-30

Why did the VFL admit interstate teams and expand?

Despite the success of the VFL, many teams were suffering financially by the 1980s. Much of this is blamed on "cheque-book recruiting", clubs attempting to buy successful players from other clubs in the VFL or in other states. This led to many clubs being technically bankrupt, with some being investigated by the Department of Corporate Affairs. In addition, crowds were falling, as were club memberships. Transfer fees were excessive and the competition was operating at a loss, while ground facilities were falling into disrepair. The new teams provided income to save the failing Victorian clubs by firstly paying substantial licence fees to join the competition, and secondly by providing increased income from television rights. The money from these two areas helped refinance the VFL and its clubs.

 

[kranky al]

http://www.library.la84.org/SportsLibrary/SportingTraditions/1985/st0102/st0102c.pdf

Page 21


Geez this is like pulling teeth. History has not so much been rewritten as smudged and covered up - the administration doesnt want anyone knowing how parlous the state of the game was

The wafl and the sanfl should have created our own national, league and asked the vics to join - who knows we might have something of a fair competition now

 

[kranky al]

http://jeffrybabb.blogspot.com.au/2012_10_01_archive.html

The first thing to establish about Australian Rules Football is that it is a product of Melbourne's inner suburbs. The VFL came into being when eight teams broke away from the Victorian Football Association (VFA) to form the VFL in 1897 -- Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Fitzroy, Geelong, Melbourne, St Kilda and South Melbourne. The VFL became the AFL in 1990. It has been conclusively proved recently that the Victorian teams did not want interstate teams in the competition and only allowed their entry to gain their entry fees, as the VFL was nearly bankrupt. Teams to gain entry, over time, were the Adelaide Crows, Port Adelaide, the West Coast Eagles, the Brisbane Bears, the Gold Coast Suns, and the Greater Western Sydney Giants. Cynics attribute the expansion of the AFL to non traditional territories to be more to do with marketing than passion, but so far the expansion teams have done reasonably well. Which is to say, better than could have been hoped.

Whistles....

 

[MarkT2]

What the heck is all that based on?
For a start Ch 7 decided not to take the rights when WCE & Bears entered and the VFL actually got less money for the rights at the time from ABC.
What is the department of corporate affairs? Did they investigate, find bankput companies and ignore it all?

 

[Anderson Brown]

http://www.library.la84.org/SportsLibrary/SportingTraditions/1985/st0102/st0102c.pdf

Page 21


Geez this is like pulling teeth. History has not so much been rewritten as smudged and covered up - the administration doesnt want anyone knowing how parlous the state of the game was

The wafl and the sanfl should have created our own national, league and asked the vics to join - who knows we might have something of a fair competition now

Finacially, the league was fine, the clubs spending was the issue. But as for your claim of the WAFL and SANFL creating their own league, both these leagues, especially the WAFL were financially up shit creek too. The interstate sides entry and subsequent license fees saved your own leagues as much as it did the VFL.

 

[Rob]

I've had the time to go over what is proposed and think about what's actually going to happen. I reckon it's worth giving a go to see whether it will work. I think there will be a few issues.

If the idea is that the tax will fund the smaller clubs, then at least it takes it out of the AFL's hands who just give money to whoever holds their hands out. Consequently it's important that the tax isn't set at too high a threshold so that no-one or very few clubs pay it, and not at too high a rate so that once again no-one pays it.

The other issue is the flow on impact. If it is successful at reducing certain clubs' football department spend, then those clubs are still going to have the cash there. What are they going to spend it on? If those clubs just increase their marketing budget, then the problem - being the gap between the big clubs and small ones - is just going to get worse. The big clubs will have massive marketing budgets, which will increase their popularity as well as their memberships, crowds and sponsors. The smaller clubs, especially those in Melbourne will get drowned out at the problem will get worse. Whats the plan then, slap on a marketing cap? Tax the big clubs more? I can see Brayshaw getting in the media and bitching about how every 2nd ad and billboard is about Collingwood.

 

[kranky al]

Finacially, the league was fine, the clubs spending was the issue. But as for your claim of the WAFL and SANFL creating their own league, both these leagues, especially the WAFL were financially up shit creek too. The interstate sides entry and subsequent license fees saved your own leagues as much as it did the VFL.

It was sort of a tongue in cheek comment - but also not - we werent in a great state but we werent broke like your lot - at the end of the day the wafc stumped up 4 mill - i wonder if we had stayed the course with sa if there would have been a better outcome

As for the license fees saving our own leagues - pffffft they went strait to vic clubs - 650k each iirc

The eagles profits went to the wafc - and to fund footy in this state


Which is what pisses me off about this equalisation thing - its taking our on and off field success - the profits that are generated and propping up 2 too many clubs in victoria instead of propping up footy in w.a that supplies a shedload of quality players into the comp

You vics need to rationalise - or if you insist on keeping all the teams - you lot can pay for it - we have our own footy comp to support.

 

[madmug]

Which is what pisses me off about this equalisation thing - its taking our on and off field success - the profits that are generated and propping up 2 too many clubs in victoria instead of propping up footy in w.a that supplies a shedload of quality players into the comp

You vics need to rationalise - or if you insist on keeping all the teams - you lot can pay for it - we have our own footy comp to support.

Them's fightin' words.

Watch out for the Vic/AFL mafia, you can't take on 'the family'.!!

 

[Probitas_]

Them's fightin' words.

Watch out for the Vic/AFL mafia, you can't take on 'the family'.!!

Did you read a single one of his other posts before you came up with that gem?

 

[kranky al]

Them's fightin' words.

Watch out for the Vic/AFL mafia, you can't take on 'the family'.!!

The afl funds football development in vicoria out of its general revenue - they dont fund wa - the eagles and dockers do

This equalisation move will take money from the wafl and put it in struggling vic clubs that will always struggle - not always the same clubs - the draft has seen to that - but there will always be a couple of clubs on the drip



Can you not see how this would be a cause for concern for us?


Now struggling vic clubs do have a valid point that the stadia deal is a crock - thats fine - but thats got nothing to do with the wafl - the afl signed off on that so the afl can take the hit - not the wafl



Is that simple enough?

 

[madmug]

The afl funds football development in vicoria out of its general revenue - they dont fund wa - the eagles and dockers do

This equalisation move will take money from the wafl and put it in struggling vic clubs that will always struggle - not always the same clubs - the draft has seen to that - but there will always be a couple of clubs on the drip



Can you not see how this would be a cause for concern for us?


Now struggling vic clubs do have a valid point that the stadia deal is a crock - thats fine - but thats got nothing to do with the wafl - the afl signed off on that so the afl can take the hit - not the wafl



Is that simple enough?

Couldnt be clearer. But if the AFL had developed a better balanced league structure we wouldnt have so many struggling suburban teams in it. Thats the root cause of the problem, the AFL ignoring the obvious problem of too many teams in the one market place. The AFL shouldnt be trying to look after clubs who have had a hundred years or so to set themselves up. The same ones have had near 30yrs of the national competition & are still struggling. The reasons are obvious. The solution has been too hard for the VicAFL administration to tackle.

 

[PieNSauce]

Couldnt be clearer. But if the AFL had developed a better balanced league structure we wouldnt have so many struggling suburban teams in it. Thats the root cause of the problem, the AFL ignoring the obvious problem of too many teams in the one market place. The AFL shouldnt be trying to look after clubs who have had a hundred years or so to set themselves up. The same ones have had near 30yrs of the national competition & are still struggling. The reasons are obvious. The solution has been too hard for the VicAFL administration to tackle.

Unfortunately that's the truth of it and I'm thoroughly unconvinced it's going to change any time soon. The simple reality is that the removal/merger/relocation etc of teams i just too unpalatable for any administrator to consider. It worked in the case of Fitzroy and Sydney because they were utterly desperate but the measures being put in place will virtually consign any hope of a repeat to oblivion. I certainly don't know the answer because I can't think of any way on earth you can convince clubs to merge etc without disenfranchising a massive number of supporters. Ultimately it's the perfect solution but it looks more and more unlikely with every passing season.

 

[theflea]

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

good question? Maybe it might stop them sacking them early.