North gets biggest share

[slamdunka]

There is no amount of money we could receive that would make up for the shafting they give us in every other aspect of the competition.

 

[Kimbo]

http://mm.afl.com.au/portals/0/2011/finals/club_funding_presentation_260911.pdf

PDF of AFL's proposal, with greater breakdown of the issues and where the money's going.

Looks like amount for debt reduction is $7M (5% of the Future Fund) - that's total across clubs I think - and the other biggest areas of input for us is in "Non Football Capability & Growth" (where we rank the most neediest) and "Stadia Revenue Disadvantage" (comparative disadvantage not shown).

 

[LT Smash]

Hope the disequal $7m over 2012-14 is targeted at the removal of our debt.

Can't see how it would if the AFL was clear on limiting payment of debts, and beyond those limits this money is heavily accounted for as business development. For us to funnel additional money off to debt repayments would require a financial controller with Melbourne Storm like creative accounting skills.

 

[Errol St Lad]

http://mm.afl.com.au/portals/0/2011/finals/club_funding_presentation_260911.pdf

PDF of AFL's proposal, with greater breakdown of the issues and where the money's going.

Looks like amount for debt reduction is $7M (5% of the Future Fund) - that's total across clubs I think - and the other biggest areas of input for us is in "Non Football Capability & Growth" (where we rank the most neediest) and "Stadia Revenue Disadvantage" (comparative disadvantage not shown).

Kimbo, thanks very much for providing this PDF. It's the first time I've ever seen any thorough break down of AFL revenue and distributions to clubs.

Actually every club gets $51 million from 2012-2016. Then the Bulldogs and us get an extra $10.2 million whilst Collingwood gets an extra $4.25 million.

SO it's $61.2 million over 5 years for us and $55.25 million over 5 years for Collingwood. Geelong will get $54.25 million over those 5 years.

It's interesting to read the Stadia Revenue figures. If you only draw 20,000 at the MCG, you'll still make $120,000, so it's not a disaster whereas at Etihad, you only make about $10,000 if 20,000 turn up.

Meanwhile down at Skilled, if 20,000 turn up they make $700,000. So they make about $35-40 million from home games over 5 years. NMFC would make $1.5 Million during the same time period if we averaged 30,000 at Etihad every game (more than Skilled's capacity) according to these figures. And so the AFL are giving us an extra $7 million to cover it.

You can see why we need to play games at Hobart. We should be looking for a new home ground in Melbourne, it's highway robbery on behalf of Etihad.

 

[Kanga3220]

We always played pretty good footy at princess park what's the story there could the AFL spend a bit there and play the interstaters there.

I guess then who is going to pay off etihad?

The good news is we have secure funding to continue to get our ducks in line and set up the future.

The Tassie deal is a sensible one for the club and looking forward to getting down there for a game.

Who would have thought the white knights would turn out to be Andy and Adrian lol

 

[utility]

There is no amount of money we could receive that would make up for the shafting they give us in every other aspect of the competition.

Exactly. This is just the excuse for an even worse fixture for the next five years. Lock it in Eddie!

 

[LT Smash]

We always played pretty good footy at princess park what's the story there could the AFL spend a bit there and play the interstaters there.

They knocked down the Members Stand iirc and built a gym and new admin so the capacity has shrunk dramatically.

 

[Shagga is all Class]

Big deal.

We get $7m more than big clubs over 5 years and the "New fund replaces previous $38m ASD."

North are doing a debt reduction anyway.

The extra stadium revenue and Hobart membership will help.

We need to start producing on field to drive more growth.

 

[gokangas]

Exactly. This is just the excuse for an even worse fixture for the next five years. Lock it in Eddie!

Ain't this the truth.

 

[Jeremy Jordan]

Its the AFL saying 'we are going to bend you over and ram you, but at least you will get some good coin for it'. I look forward to us playing on a tuesday morning, televised on SBS 2, the commentary in spanish.

 

[Kimbo]

It's them saying 'the business model' (maximise AFL revenue by promoting the bigger clubs) ain't gonna change. But, this funding recognises the constraints us and others, and seeks to compensate them. That said, their aim is to have 18 strong clubs so they want us (and 7 other clubs with significantly 'disequal' funding) to put the extra money to good use to ensure the weaknesses are addressed as much as is possible under those circumstances.

A condition of this disequality (gotta love that term) is that the clubs who aren't benefitting, rightfully, want to know the disequal funding isn't being squandered (e.g. on massive coaching payouts) and that becomes an AFL role (obviously).

 

[Tas]

A good thing about the extra revenue is that we have greater scope to funnel more of our own generated revenue towards debt reduction and use the extra revenue to fund the things it is earmarked for.

In terms of fixture, that is largely determined by the broadcasters, if we play good footy and rate well then we will be in high demand and if 7 want to broadcast more of our games we will be shoved into the prime time slots. So we can benefit from the extra revenue and improved fixturing. We just need to start performing on-field.

 

[Teffy]

A good thing about the extra revenue is that we have greater scope to funnel more of our own generated revenue towards debt reduction and use the extra revenue to fund the things it is earmarked for.

In terms of fixture, that is largely determined by the broadcasters, if we play good footy and rate well then we will be in high demand and if 7 want to broadcast more of our games we will be shoved into the prime time slots. So we can benefit from the extra revenue and improved fixturing. We just need to start performing on-field.

Once again Tas provides good relevant data in his field of excellence.

 

[Chief75]

Hopefully we can channel some of this funding into lobbying the governement to develop Ballarat as a secondary venue.

 

[Event Horizon]

One of our targets that we'll be signing off on with the AFL is building supporter bases throughout the West of Melbourne (that kind of clashes with the Bulldogs aim), Ballarat and Hobart, as well as reducing the debt.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/dollars-and-sense-20110926-1ktsz.html

 

[naturally north]

Exactly. This is just the excuse for an even worse fixture for the next five years. Lock it in Eddie!

Not sure it could get much worse...

What was it this season?- after 4 rds we'd played in Perth twice, Shit Stadium in Geelong and the Pies.

Imagine Conningwood getting such a draw, one of Eddie's chins would fall off.

 

[DarkPhoenix]

Dunstall has a stick up his arse about north getting 7mil on Insider atm.

Scott (paraphrasing): The 7mil we've received will be used to expand our revenue gaining services (staff in tasmania, membership, comercial activities).

 

[ZACK WILD]

Dunstall has a stick up his arse about north getting 7mil on Insider atm.

Scott (paraphrasing): The 7mil we've received will be used to expand our revenue gaining services (staff in tasmania, membership, comercial activities).

He was happy to give us 100mil in 07

 

[Arden]

A condition of this disequality (gotta love that term) is that the clubs who aren't benefitting, rightfully, want to know the disequal funding isn't being squandered (e.g. on massive coaching payouts) and that becomes an AFL role (obviously).

This is insulting to a degree. Do North and Footscray get a say in how Collingwood spends the proceeds of Anzac Day and FNF? If the sack and payout Bucks at the end of 2012, can we complain?

 

[Tas]

This is insulting to a degree. Do North and Footscray get a say in how Collingwood spends the proceeds of Anzac Day and FNF? If the sack and payout Bucks at the end of 2012, can we complain?

It is, it still implies that it is a handout rather than it being compensation. You don't put conditions on compensation.

There are some economic realities we can't escape though, clubs like Collingwood get the FNF because tv stations want the safe ratings. The sooner the have nots are financially independent and don't need assistance the sooner the clubs can stand up and ask for a more equitable slice of the pie. It is hard for us to make a huge fuss while the AFL at a whim determines how much we get in assistance.

 

[True North]

We should sell 2 games to Russia. An Oligarch as numero uno supporter will have us on track in hours, not days or weeks.

 

[Errol St Lad]

This is insulting to a degree. Do North and Footscray get a say in how Collingwood spends the proceeds of Anzac Day and FNF? If the sack and payout Bucks at the end of 2012, can we complain?

I agree it's insulting and for more than one reason. You may recognise bit of this from an earlier thread but we've done more work on the figures and it makes me angry.

A few of us have looked through the AFL's "Club funding & equalisation strategy 2012‐16" closely over the last few days and believe they have only gone part way in telling the story.

I think this job needs to be done, either by them or by the three disadvantaged tenants of Etihad. I am concerned that we, along with St Kilda and the Bulldogs - are still being severely hamstrung by the stadium deal and I don't think the AFL has made it clear that our total dividend is around only 5% higher than any other club.


After going through the figures, our understanding is that EVERY club will get a base of $51 million from 2012-2016. On top of that, the Bulldogs and North Melbourne will get an extra $10.2 million whilst Collingwood gets an extra $4.25 million and Geelong $3.25 million.


Therefore we'll recieve $61.2 million over 5 years, whilst Collingwood is given $55.25 million over 5 years and Geelong $54.25 million over the same period.


I presume that this 'disequal' fund, which gives us a mere $6 million and $7 million more than Collingwood and Geelong respectively over 5 years, is supposed to make up for the inequitable fixture and the fact that we (and the other clubs - but not Essendon who have a good deal) are effectively paying off the AFL's Etihad commitment.

We decided to look at what we would lose if we play at Etihad and not the MCG or Skilled Stadium over the next 5 years.


From the AFL's figures, if you only draw 30,000 at the MCG, you'll still make $150,000, so it's not a disaster whereas at Etihad, you only make about $25,000 if 30,000 turn up. Meanwhile down at Skilled, if 25,000 turn Frank Costa has said that they make $700,000.



So Geelong will make about $35-40 million from home games over 5 years, lets say $35 million.

NMFC would make just $1.5 Million during the same time period if we averaged 30,000 at Etihad every game according to the AFL's figures.


If we played at the MCG and averaged 30,000, we'd make $8.75 million. Yet if we had Collingwood's draw, that amount would be doubled to $17.5 million.

So compared to Geelong, we would lose $33.5 million if we played all 11 home games at Etihad in the next 5 years.


Compared to Collingwood, factoring in the draw, we would lose $16 million if we played all 11 home games at Etihad in the next 5 years.


Yet we are going to be tarnished by claims that we are getting handouts. But in reality, we are paying off the AFL's commitment to Etihad. Revenue generated by our supporters is paying off Etihad shareholders and the compensation of $6 million and $7 million over 5 years - compared to Collingwood and Geelong, does not come close bridging the gap and is laughable.


Either the AFL should explain this properly or I think a joint press conference with the us, the Bulldogs and St Kilda to clarify

• the differences in MCG, Skilled and Etihad revenues as outlined above over 5 years
• that the 3 clubs are paying off the AFL's commitment at Etihad
• that all clubs recieve between $54.25 million and $61.2 million so as to avert hand out accusations
• that the $6 million - $7 million extra does not bridge the gap

The AFL has asked that we show progress. As a NMFC member, I want to see what the AFL is going to do to fix the stadium revenue issue because it is clearly far from fixed.

 

[Twinkletoes]

Great work Errol St Lad, and thanks for posting it. There's little doubt that the present Etihad Stadium deal leaves us, the Dogs, and the Saints pushing shit up hill trying to compete and survive.

You should send that to Damien Barrett at Croc Media, RoCo at The Age, and Finey at SEN, to help spread the word.

 

[R00StaR]

Great post ESL, get shafted and put on a drip feed while calling it compensation. Although the as pointed out, its seen as a hand out and the stigma that goes with it simply wont help.

So where has all this AFL maximising revenue got us as a comp? Im not convinced its achieved anything really, other than making players rich (short term). So what if the AFL happened to get 150m or 200m extra over 5 years, it not like they use it to do something positive like buyout the money sink of a stadium!

Imagine for a second if the AFL actually leased the stadiums so ALL clubs had exactly the same deal. They then profit shared NFL style 60/40 of the gate, split evenly the TV money to cover player wages, they managed the merchandising again split NFL style. While there will always be bigger clubs around, imagine how strong and healthy the comp would be.

Any new supporters could know they could support any team and have a great chance of seeing them succeed, know that they'll be around. No talk of handouts, charity and culling clubs. Then as support grows more evenly for each team, every game becomes a blockbuster. The FTA TV wouldnt care what clubs play, they'd just want evenly matched teams with weighting to the more recently performed. This pleases the neutral supporters no end and we switch on in greater numbers!

More even FTA is more even exposure, more even sponsorship and again more even promotion to newer supporters. Evening up the comp even more! Its starts to feed on itself growing bigger and bigger. Exactly how the NFL went from bugger all to a monster of sports.

Would the TV networks pay more or less for this product?

Yet we cant have it, because the AFL in their wisdom took the 150m or whatever once, now they need to continue doing the same to keep it. They limit their upside for a short term gain and in doing so create a gulf between the haves and have nots. We get exactly the opposite effect the NFL achieved, yep we're heading closer to EPL.

The AFL have to have the balls to take a step back and get it right. So what if next rights we get no extra, say we get exactly the same as this 5 years, big deal. It'll only happen once and the game will grow way beyond this current short sightedness.

 

[RooHooDoo]

Great post Errol.

The thing that really sh_ts me to tears, is on top of that we get labeled as leeches on the competition.

It stinks.