Thinks St Kilda deserve the 2 points they stole from Fremantle and now believes the clubs shouldn't get more money from the the TV rights. Also that haircut is shocking. 
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Rod Butterss is a fool
- Thread starter MadDawg
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Thread starter
- #4
Presidents at war
03 May 2006 Herald Sun
Mark Robinson
ST KILDA president Rod Butterss will go one out against the big two – Eddie McGuire and Jeff Kennett – and demand the AFL does not give more money to clubs.
McGuire, Kennett, Western Bulldogs president David Smorgon and Melbourne president Paul Gardner have joined forces to pressure the AFL to give clubs a greater slice of the TV rights money, worth $780 million from 2007-2011.
The presidential showdown will come tomorrow when the club presidents meet the AFL where chief executive Andrew Demetriou will outline how the extra finances will be budgeted.
The clubs believe they will receive an extra $1 million over five years, a figure Kennett, McGuire, Smorgon and Gardner will stress is not good enough.
It's believed new Carlton president Graham Smorgon, whose club is in severe debt, also will argue for an increased payout.
But Butterss, whose club has returned consecutive million-dollar profits, said clubs didn't need the extra money.
"What I'm saying is, strictly speaking, the clubs could do with more money," Butterss said.
"But we have a mechanism in place to distribute that money and God help the industry the day the clubs overrule.
"The reason we have an independent commission is to make these decisions for the good of the game.
"We've largely got three camps. We've got the highly wealthy clubs, the clubs who are doing OK and we've got the clubs who are struggling.
"I don't see the point in having an equal distribution which results in the wealthy clubs getting wealthier, which will result in a more inflationary environment, which results in the bottom clubs being no better off."
It has been revealed there's a $25 million shared debt in the competition, with most of it shared by five Victorian clubs.
Already, three clubs -- Melbourne, the Western Bulldogs and the Kangaroos -- receive more than $1 million each under the league's annual special distribution fund.
"Some clubs don't need the extra money because it becomes an inflationary mechanism and it actually works against the struggling clubs anyway so what's the point of doing that," Butterss said.
"There are mechanisms in place for the health of the competition overall and we shouldn't be making broad-based demands to just distribute more money.
"You're giving to a struggling club on one hand and then you're increasing the cost of the business on the other and they spend it trying to keep up. It's just silly."
Butterss is not concerned about the impending confrontation with Kennett, McGuire and the other presidents.
"They're welcome to disagree with me and it won't be the first time," he said.
"We've got to be careful we don't create an inflationary environment."
He said wealthy clubs would spend any increase in finances on more marketing, more staff and better facilities. "We've distributed more industry money and the status quo remains," Butterss said.
03 May 2006 Herald Sun
Mark Robinson
ST KILDA president Rod Butterss will go one out against the big two – Eddie McGuire and Jeff Kennett – and demand the AFL does not give more money to clubs.
McGuire, Kennett, Western Bulldogs president David Smorgon and Melbourne president Paul Gardner have joined forces to pressure the AFL to give clubs a greater slice of the TV rights money, worth $780 million from 2007-2011.
The presidential showdown will come tomorrow when the club presidents meet the AFL where chief executive Andrew Demetriou will outline how the extra finances will be budgeted.
The clubs believe they will receive an extra $1 million over five years, a figure Kennett, McGuire, Smorgon and Gardner will stress is not good enough.
It's believed new Carlton president Graham Smorgon, whose club is in severe debt, also will argue for an increased payout.
But Butterss, whose club has returned consecutive million-dollar profits, said clubs didn't need the extra money.
"What I'm saying is, strictly speaking, the clubs could do with more money," Butterss said.
"But we have a mechanism in place to distribute that money and God help the industry the day the clubs overrule.
"The reason we have an independent commission is to make these decisions for the good of the game.
"We've largely got three camps. We've got the highly wealthy clubs, the clubs who are doing OK and we've got the clubs who are struggling.
"I don't see the point in having an equal distribution which results in the wealthy clubs getting wealthier, which will result in a more inflationary environment, which results in the bottom clubs being no better off."
It has been revealed there's a $25 million shared debt in the competition, with most of it shared by five Victorian clubs.
Already, three clubs -- Melbourne, the Western Bulldogs and the Kangaroos -- receive more than $1 million each under the league's annual special distribution fund.
"Some clubs don't need the extra money because it becomes an inflationary mechanism and it actually works against the struggling clubs anyway so what's the point of doing that," Butterss said.
"There are mechanisms in place for the health of the competition overall and we shouldn't be making broad-based demands to just distribute more money.
"You're giving to a struggling club on one hand and then you're increasing the cost of the business on the other and they spend it trying to keep up. It's just silly."
Butterss is not concerned about the impending confrontation with Kennett, McGuire and the other presidents.
"They're welcome to disagree with me and it won't be the first time," he said.
"We've got to be careful we don't create an inflationary environment."
He said wealthy clubs would spend any increase in finances on more marketing, more staff and better facilities. "We've distributed more industry money and the status quo remains," Butterss said.
if you read the article, its actually quite smart what he's saying, oh well some people do struggle with lifeMadDawg said:Thinks St Kilda deserve the 2 points they stole from Fremantle and now believes the clubs shouldn't get more money from the the TV rights. Also that haircut is shocking.
- Thread starter
- #7
nicho_magic said:
So he's smarter than most of the other presidents in the league.
I find that hard to believe.nicho_magic said:
so true nicho.
Once again what Butters is saying is good for struggling clubs...but alas......Smorgon just signs on with Eddie in the hope of a few more sponsor dollars.....
Butters is spot on here - why pay more money to all clubs only to allow the "costs" associatedn with staying viable and successful to grow exponentially???
Im tipping its lost on many.
Why? Someone has to be? Not saying it is surely him but someone does...MadDawg said:So he's smarter than most of the other presidents in the league.
That said he is hardly a pauper, a
ing intelligent businessman if ya will.
JeffDunne
TheBrownDog
Rod as usual is spot on.
Fantastic to see at least one Victorian club president can still look at the greater good.
Well said Rod.
Fantastic to see at least one Victorian club president can still look at the greater good.
Well said Rod.
JeffDunne said:
Reading between the lines He is trying to keep money from the Non- Vic and large Victorian Clubs so there is more available to prop up the basket cases in Melbourne.
Bit of a VFL type attitude IMO.
- Banned
- #12
As much as it irks me to say it, he is 100% spot on. Its a very Socialist thought pattern which again also irks the out of me to agree with it. But for the good of the competition if we are to continue with the current 16 clubs with no relocations and mergers etc. he is making alot of sense.
out of me to agree with it. But for the good of the competition if we are to continue with the current 16 clubs with no relocations and mergers etc. he is making alot of sense.
"We need to assist the struggling clubs" has become a euphamism for "Let's keep all the money in Victoria".
JeffDunne
TheBrownDog
If more money is distributed to clubs, it will meen more money is spent in Victoria (there are more Victorian clubs than non-Vic).
Money spent on game development isn't going to be spent in Metro Vic.
Fair dinkum, the xenopohia west of Bordertown is staggering.
Money spent on game development isn't going to be spent in Metro Vic.
Fair dinkum, the xenopohia west of Bordertown is staggering.
his arguement is flawed. look at an example of two clubs - "rich" and "poor".
assume "rich" has a net value of $10 mill and "poor" has a net value of $2 mill.
"rich" is 5 times wealthier than "poor".
now assume each club gets $1 mill from the afl, "rich" now has $11 mill compared to $3 mill for "poor".
"rich" is now 3.67 times wealthier than "poor".
as long as expenses don't take up the full amount of money distributed to the clubs (which won't happen for sure with the poorer clubs) then there will be some advantage to the poorer clubs as the gap between rich and poor will be lessened.
assume "rich" has a net value of $10 mill and "poor" has a net value of $2 mill.
"rich" is 5 times wealthier than "poor".
now assume each club gets $1 mill from the afl, "rich" now has $11 mill compared to $3 mill for "poor".
"rich" is now 3.67 times wealthier than "poor".
as long as expenses don't take up the full amount of money distributed to the clubs (which won't happen for sure with the poorer clubs) then there will be some advantage to the poorer clubs as the gap between rich and poor will be lessened.
So you give more money to the clubs who generate the least. You keep the money in the central organisation which is showing itself to be more and more inefficient with every day that goes by.
You also deny the WA and SA clubs funds that they can distribute to their local leagues.
Sounds like a recipe for a break away.
You also deny the WA and SA clubs funds that they can distribute to their local leagues.
Sounds like a recipe for a break away.
LOL, at the back fire of this thread.MadDawg said:Thinks St Kilda deserve the 2 points they stole from Fremantle and now believes the clubs shouldn't get more money from the the TV rights. Also that haircut is shocking.
JeffDunne said:
I don't know the reasons from other states but in Adelaide it is born out of ignorant comments by the media towards Victoria. If anything goes wrong, we simply blame Victoria. 5AA is a disgrace in this area. Rather than present a balanced (and more realistic) picture for the public, they love to hang onto anachronisitc 1960s and 1970s SA v Vic rivalry that no longer exists. I've been waiting for the Adelaide media to grow up and take the quantum leap into the AFL, but I am doubting this will ever happen. They don't realise it's a club competition, they still think it's all about SA v Vic.
JeffDunne said:
Wasnt so long ago Butters himself was going cap in hand and bent over to the afl asking for more money. And it wont be long either before he has to do it again.
The problem with the Saints is that they have a club history of 4 years. Anything that happened before that just doesnt exist for them.
Another season without a GF will sort all that out quick smart
Rod is spot on, but does not go far enough.
If more money is payed out to the clubs the wealthy ones will spend more on training facilities and coaches which has been proven makes those clubs teams more competative. The poor clubs will pay off their debt but remain uncompetative, thus keeping them in the vicious cycle of not receiving as much for sponsorship or ticket sales.
As the average price of running an AFL team skyrockets, so will the need for the struggeling clubs to be propped up by the AFL.
So we end up where we alreadyu are, only it has cost the AFL about 100 million over 5 years to redistribute the wealth back to the clubs.
This will weaken head- quaters ability to fund the game at the grass roots level in the growth states, and also make it much much harder to start up new clubs and give them a license to play in the AFL, becuase inflation would make the cost of running an AFL team way to high for any new club to generate enough income over it's inception years.
If the AFL cave into the clubs you can forget about the expqansion into western Sydney and S-E Queensland.
This a bad thing becuase in 10 years you will still have 4 struggeling teams in Melbourne, it will coast 50 million to run a club per year, and development of interest in the growth states will have leveled out, with no possiblity of further development in those areas.
As Much a s I hate the AFL for screwing around with the rules of the game, I would hate to see the clubs get the money becuse they will spend it on things that will not make the game stronger.
Long Live the AFL, death to the rules commitee.
If more money is payed out to the clubs the wealthy ones will spend more on training facilities and coaches which has been proven makes those clubs teams more competative. The poor clubs will pay off their debt but remain uncompetative, thus keeping them in the vicious cycle of not receiving as much for sponsorship or ticket sales.
As the average price of running an AFL team skyrockets, so will the need for the struggeling clubs to be propped up by the AFL.
So we end up where we alreadyu are, only it has cost the AFL about 100 million over 5 years to redistribute the wealth back to the clubs.
This will weaken head- quaters ability to fund the game at the grass roots level in the growth states, and also make it much much harder to start up new clubs and give them a license to play in the AFL, becuase inflation would make the cost of running an AFL team way to high for any new club to generate enough income over it's inception years.
If the AFL cave into the clubs you can forget about the expqansion into western Sydney and S-E Queensland.
This a bad thing becuase in 10 years you will still have 4 struggeling teams in Melbourne, it will coast 50 million to run a club per year, and development of interest in the growth states will have leveled out, with no possiblity of further development in those areas.
As Much a s I hate the AFL for screwing around with the rules of the game, I would hate to see the clubs get the money becuse they will spend it on things that will not make the game stronger.
Long Live the AFL, death to the rules commitee.
Adelaide Hawk said:
This is why we need to bring back state of origin.
bloodsports said:
Righto, so when your own boss comes to you with a promotion or salary increase, I'd expect you'd say no thanks because I'd just end up spending more money.
Butters comments, as usual, are bordering on the ridiculous
hutstar
Team Captain
amnesiac said:
What?!? complete nonsense. The percentage difference might well be lessened, but the actual difference remains the same- so all you do is create inflation, and no one benefits. Have another go.
1980 said:
When was that just out of curiosity ??
You are an effing morono if you think that an extra $1 million spent by a Collingwood/Ess/WCE on improving serivces/medical techniques/facilities will not further widen the gap between a Kangaroos/Bulldogs/Carlton who have to spend it on servicing their debt !!!
Similar threads
