Seriously is it time to merge some of the Vic clubs?

[NTRabbit]

You don't share a state with multiple clubs!

My god....I'm done.

No we don't!

That's the entire point of this argument, how can you possibly not understand this?!

There are too many clubs in Melbourne to be sustained, which is why North, Melbourne, Bulldogs and St Kilda are perennial off field failures! Therefore, those clubs need to move to somewhere where they aren't sharing with too many clubs, like for instance, North Melbourne to Tasmania! Alternatively, they can have the drip cut off, die, and be replaced by new teams in other locations to maintain the 9 games a week for television!

How can you seriously not get this?

 

[Doctor Feel]

why should profitable clubs be forced to prop up the other clubs so they can survive? how is that fair on the likes of collingwood, essendon and the rest that are popular, yet are usually forced to contribute to clubs that cant sustain themselves, and have proven to be unable to do so over a period of time?

Because you would have no reason to have a competition because there would be like 5 clubs in the entire league. Get your hand off it, you exist because we exist and visa versa. I think you will find there are rich clubs and 'poor' clubs in just about every competition.

 

[catters05]

why should profitable clubs be forced to prop up the other clubs so they can survive? how is that fair on the likes of collingwood, essendon and the rest that are popular, yet are usually forced to contribute to clubs that cant sustain themselves, and have proven to be unable to do so over a period of time?

Clubs like collingwood and essendon get Anzac day, dreamtime and queens so I think they are doing okay.

And tbh I really don't think those two care.

 

[NTRabbit]

Clubs like collingwood and essendon get Anzac day, dreamtime and queens so I think they are doing okay.

And tbh I really don't think those two care.

I think you'll find Eddie and Collingwood care. Quite a bit.

 

[catters05]

I think you'll find Eddie and Collingwood care. Quite a bit.

I've never heard Eddie come out and say clubs should merge, I think he has always been a supporter of all clubs.

 

[froars]

Geez no need to get so worked up over someone's opinion. For the record I do follow soccer too.

I get very worked up when the high and mighty think they're better than others. Is the competition failing in some way that we have to get rid of clubs? No.

Useless thread!

 

[Rioli magic]

why should profitable clubs be forced to prop up the other clubs so they can survive? how is that fair on the likes of collingwood, essendon and the rest that are popular, yet are usually forced to contribute to clubs that cant sustain themselves, and have proven to be unable to do so over a period of time?

I assume you mean propping up by the AFL? Who exactly do you think the "AFL" is and whose money is it they are giving to these clubs?

 

[The_Wookie]

I reckon melbourne might be fine if they played less interstate clubs and more melbourne clubs. Seroiously the draw North, melbourne and the bulldogs get is a joke for clubs that are close to the wire. hawthorn on the other hand have themselves to blame for their tassie crap (north to a lesser extent, melb and bulldogs for darwin too).

The non Victorian clubs claim to have saved the league, but in reality only 6 clubs were near broke (Fitzroy, Footscray, Collingwood, Geelong, St Kilda, Sydney). Then these same clubs had the issue of having to play low drawing interstate teams in victoria at the expense of half decent crowds usually gained by playing Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon and other twice.

It was a sword that cut both ways, except for tv rights which went from 3.3 million a year to 6 million a year (yes thats right, Channel 7 paid 30 million for 5 years in 1987, compared to 1.2 billion for the current rights arrangement). Only West Coast and Brisbane paid their license fees up front, Adelaide paid in installments, as did every other entrant. The situation must have been a lot better by 1990, because Port were able to negotiate a 1.5 million dollar license fee - something the SANFL tried and failed to get for Adelaide.

 

[LeverPuller]

No we don't!

That's the entire point of this argument, how can you possibly not understand this?!

There are too many clubs in Melbourne to be sustained, which is why North, Melbourne, Bulldogs and St Kilda are perennial off field failures! Therefore, those clubs need to move to somewhere where they aren't sharing with too many clubs, like for instance, North Melbourne to Tasmania! Alternatively, they can have the drip cut off, die, and be replaced by new teams in other locations to maintain the 9 games a week for television!

How can you seriously not get this?

Perennial off-field failures, meaning Melbourne have one of the best off-field financial positions in the AFL of any team, and are moving to continue to build themselves to get off the AFL reallocation fund - a fund which not only Melbourne and the Bulldogs are on, but also North, Carlton, Adelaide and Port?


Oh, but of course, facts have no place in such an argument

 

[NTRabbit]

I've never heard Eddie come out and say clubs should merge, I think he has always been a supporter of all clubs.

Merge or die, no, move, yes. He has angsted about Collingwood subsidising the league before.

 

[NTRabbit]

Perennial off-field failures, meaning Melbourne have one of the best off-field financial positions in the AFL of any team, and are moving to continue to build themselves to get off the AFL reallocation fund - a fund which not only Melbourne and the Bulldogs are on, but also North, Carlton, Adelaide and Port?


Oh, but of course, facts have no place in such an argument

Debt demolition. Charity is not a well you can keep going back to year after year.

Oh, and Adelaide are not on any fund, just a once off cash payment from negotiations over the SANFL and the Adelaide Oval move, which was not even remotely a subsidy necessary to keep the club afloat.

 

[catters05]

Merge or die, no, move, yes. He has angsted about Collingwood subsidising the league before.

Why should I pay more tax to support people who don't have the drive to succeed? It's apart of life that I accept and for a great comp like the AFL, clubs will go through highs and lows. I think Pies were broke before Eddie took over......

 

[jeemak]

why should profitable clubs be forced to prop up the other clubs so they can survive? how is that fair on the likes of collingwood, essendon and the rest that are popular, yet are usually forced to contribute to clubs that cant sustain themselves, and have proven to be unable to do so over a period of time?

It might have something to do with the fact the profitable and popular clubs have a greater opportunity to be so through the amount of clubs in the competition, and the amount of games it takes to play them all over a period of time. You know, multi million dollar TV deals get built on certain amounts of games played, at certain times.

Would you be comfortable with only playing Port once a year? Would you be comfortable with a rolling fixture that saw all clubs get equal exposure and equal opportunity to play in key time slots year in year out, with no bias towards "blockbuster" games?


The clubs you bemoan provided the platform for teams like yours to exist. You've sinced flourished, and won a couple of flags in the process. One might argue that you should be doing a fair bit better than what you currently are from a performance perspective as a result of your position as the first club to be established in an expansion market, though I think that's a topic of another thread.

On a side note, would you be comfortable for the proceeds of the sale of Etihad Stadium or the ongoing proceeds once it's purchased by the AFL to be fairly distributed to the clubs that have paid for its construction and operation over the last 12 years? Remember, that will mean only a few clubs benefit, cool?

Let's forget the blockbuster bullshit, the rigged draw and the prejudice against traditional Melbourne clubs that offer a significant amount of support to the entire league and community for 10 years from this point and see where it takes us all.

It's rubbish to think that clubs which assisted in the game expanding to the point where it currently has should be tossed aside whilst not getting an even run at profitability from a stadium deal perspective and an even draw that provides equal exposure to all. Especially since it was their hard work that got the league in to the position it is in right now.

 

[calyam]

No we don't!

That's the entire point of this argument, how can you possibly not understand this?!

There are too many clubs in Melbourne to be sustained, which is why North, Melbourne, Bulldogs and St Kilda are perennial off field failures! Therefore, those clubs need to move to somewhere where they aren't sharing with too many clubs, like for instance, North Melbourne to Tasmania! Alternatively, they can have the drip cut off, die, and be replaced by new teams in other locations to maintain the 9 games a week for television!

How can you seriously not get this?

So you want to want to replace 'unsuccessful' Melbourne-based teams with less successful interstate teams to maintain nine games a week? You're full of bright ideas.


At the end of the day the AFL is a not for profit organisation. It has no shareholders and the only value that profits provide is to strengthen the game of the football in this country. So it really does not matter if a few teams barely breakeven or run operating losses. Furthermore, the AFL is phenomenally wealthy and well run, it makes most of its money because of its capacity to utilise the branding of the eighteen teams in this league.

In addition, there is an almost obnoxious obsession with football club debt that rivals the obsession with sovereign debt in this country. Most members here would have a higher level of debt as a percentage of their income and most members would have vastly less certain income streams than football clubs do. A very large majority of us have no problem servicing our debt in the same way that our football clubs have no problem servicing their debt.

Finally, league handouts are fair and equitable because we have an unfair and inequitable competition. Essendon gets to play in blockbusters all the time and have a great stadium deal so it only makes sense that other teams are compensated because they do not have those same opportunities. Despite supporting a very wealthy and successful football club I recognise that the competition is only as strong as the teams that are involved; and clubs are only as strong as their traditions and the passion of the fans. The clubs that people want to remove have rich and undeniably histories and traditions, such decisions should be treated with far more caution than most members here seem willing to provide.

Quite frankly, the AFL benefits to a remarkable degree from the traditions of the old VFL, there is arguably no sporting city like Melbourne in the world; a city in which so many teams can have such strong and passionate support. The league and its supporters would be worse off if this was to change and if teams were removed or merged the league would not be stronger and many supporters would be lost to the game permanently.

 

[Dogs_r_barking]

I am always fascinated by these types of threads, which interstate teams supporters always start.

Just a couple of points I would like to make:

-The AFL gives money to all the clubs.
-The compensation some of the smaller clubs get, is in recognition of the inherent unfairness in the fixture. ie Anzac Day, the WA Derby x 2 each year, etc
-While the AFL does give additional money to some clubs, it also has a strict criteria that these clubs have to abide by including a strong business plan, it is not handouts for the sake of handouts.
-The Bulldogs fundraised, and attracted State and Federal funding to redevelop-Whitten Oval (our home ground for the interstates). With most of the other clubs copying us since including Adelaide. (We have used this to create further revenue streams).

Teams that have had additional handouts that I am aware of include: Richmond, Port Adelaide, Adelaide, Carlton, Bulldogs, Melbourne and North Melbourne. For all I know all clubs may have got additional money at some stage.

Hawthorn and Melbourne were nearly merged several years ago. Now Hawthorn is a powerhouse and Melbourne is financially independent.

Finally, everyone talks about memberships, but the reality is, that the MCG only holds 80,000 to 90,000 - so what happens when a club like Collingwood reaches 150,000? The clubs are a market that can reach saturation point.

 

[GreatBradScott]

I am always fascinated by these types of threads, which interstate teams supporters always start.

Just a couple of points I would like to make:

-The AFL gives money to all the clubs.
-The compensation some of the smaller clubs get, is in recognition of the inherent unfairness in the fixture. ie Anzac Day, the WA Derby x 2 each year, etc
-While the AFL does give additional money to some clubs, it also has a strict criteria that these clubs have to abide by including a strong business plan, it is not handouts for the sake of handouts.
-The Bulldogs fundraised, and attracted State and Federal funding to redevelop-Whitten Oval (our home ground for the interstates). With most of the other clubs copying us since including Adelaide. (We have used this to create further revenue streams).

Teams that have had additional handouts that I am aware of include: Richmond, Port Adelaide, Adelaide, Carlton, Bulldogs, Melbourne and North Melbourne. For all I know all clubs may have got additional money at some stage.

Hawthorn and Melbourne were nearly merged several years ago. Now Hawthorn is a powerhouse and Melbourne is financially independent.

Finally, everyone talks about memberships, but the reality is, that the MCG only holds 80,000 to 90,000 - so what happens when a club like Collingwood reaches 150,000? The clubs are a market that can reach saturation point.

And that's the thread. Go home ladies and gentlemen.

 

[Dogs_r_barking]

So you want to want to replace 'unsuccessful' Melbourne-based teams with less successful interstate teams to maintain nine games a week? You're full of bright ideas.


At the end of the day the AFL is a not for profit organisation. It has no shareholders and the only value that profits provide is to strengthen the game of the football in this country. So it really does not matter if a few teams barely breakeven or run operating losses. Furthermore, the AFL is phenomenally wealthy and well run, it makes most of its money because of its capacity to utilise the branding of the eighteen teams in this league.

In addition, there is an almost obnoxious obsession with football club debt that rivals the obsession with sovereign debt in this country. Most members here would have a higher level of debt as a percentage of their income and most members would have vastly less certain income streams than football clubs do. A very large majority of us have no problem servicing our debt in the same way that our football clubs have no problem servicing their debt.

Finally, league handouts are fair and equitable because we have an unfair and inequitable competition. Essendon gets to play in blockbusters all the time and have a great stadium deal so it only makes sense that other teams are compensated because they do not have those same opportunities. Despite supporting a very wealthy and successful football club I recognise that the competition is only as strong as the teams that are involved; and clubs are only as strong as their traditions and the passion of the fans. The clubs that people want to remove have rich and undeniably histories and traditions, such decisions should be treated with far more caution than most members here seem willing to provide.

Quite frankly, the AFL benefits to a remarkable degree from the traditions of the old VFL, there is arguably no sporting city like Melbourne in the world; a city in which so many teams can have such strong and passionate support. The league and its supporters would be worse off if this was to change and if teams were removed or merged the league would not be stronger and many supporters would be lost to the game permanently.

Great post Calyam, agree with it all. The other point I forgot to mention is that Victoria has a larger population than WA and SA, and is a growth state, so more people are moving here all the time.

 

[The_Wookie]

Agreed it's great hearing from supporters of the formerly known Indian Pacific Limited franchise, (not sure what it's franchise name is now) tell us all about killing off member based football clubs.

it remains IPL, a wholly owned subsidary of the WAFL. These interstate people often forget that the WAFL was broke and begging for state aid in 1983 - thats the league, not necessarily the WAFL clubs.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Alternatively, they can have the drip cut off, die, and be replaced by new teams in other locations to maintain the 9 games a week for television!

Nine games a week on television is pointless if nobody is watching. And if you think North, Bulldogs, St. Kilda and Melbourne are low-drawing clubs, just wait until your highly fancied "new teams in other locations" take centre stage.

Canberra, Cairns, Hobart and New Zealand, I hear people say? Those ratings would make the current so-called struggling clubs' figures look positively brilliant. Your harebrained scheme would just result in less people following/supporting the AFL.

I also enjoyed your notion that "new teams in other locations" would put an end to poor clubs leeching off rich clubs. Where do you think the money came from to allow an existence for the Gold Coast and GWS?

 

[jeemak]

So you want to want to replace 'unsuccessful' Melbourne-based teams with less successful interstate teams to maintain nine games a week? You're full of bright ideas.


At the end of the day the AFL is a not for profit organisation. It has no shareholders and the only value that profits provide is to strengthen the game of the football in this country. So it really does not matter if a few teams barely breakeven or run operating losses. Furthermore, the AFL is phenomenally wealthy and well run, it makes most of its money because of its capacity to utilise the branding of the eighteen teams in this league.

In addition, there is an almost obnoxious obsession with football club debt that rivals the obsession with sovereign debt in this country. Most members here would have a higher level of debt as a percentage of their income and most members would have vastly less certain income streams than football clubs do. A very large majority of us have no problem servicing our debt in the same way that our football clubs have no problem servicing their debt.

Finally, league handouts are fair and equitable because we have an unfair and inequitable competition. Essendon gets to play in blockbusters all the time and have a great stadium deal so it only makes sense that other teams are compensated because they do not have those same opportunities. Despite supporting a very wealthy and successful football club I recognise that the competition is only as strong as the teams that are involved; and clubs are only as strong as their traditions and the passion of the fans. The clubs that people want to remove have rich and undeniably histories and traditions, such decisions should be treated with far more caution than most members here seem willing to provide.

Quite frankly, the AFL benefits to a remarkable degree from the traditions of the old VFL, there is arguably no sporting city like Melbourne in the world; a city in which so many teams can have such strong and passionate support. The league and its supporters would be worse off if this was to change and if teams were removed or merged the league would not be stronger and many supporters would be lost to the game permanently.

Excellent post.

 

[froars]

Seriously, anyone that wants to see the demise of a club, get out the video of Fitzroy's last game against Richmond in Melbourne, and then put yourselves in their supporters' position. Horrible thing to happen to anyone.
The AFL is a very successful competition, and most clubs will have their time in decline, but they rebound.
A decade ago, we were saying that the introduction of interstate clubs was the end of Victorian clubs as they were continually making the finals. That certainly changed. So will the circumstances of Melbourne, and other clubs that are struggling.
Must be some pretty ordinary people who have no idea what the love of a footy club means to people!
If the AFL was struggling, you might have some merit, but they're not, so give it a rest.

 

[buddyruff]

Why not? The population in Melbourne is only going to get bigger.

 

[Perry Pie]

There isnt any club that I would call a parasite on the comp, if they are irrelevent why are you so bothered? The AFL generates its money from all the clubs - it is the clubs money really. Sometimes the AFL needs to support a club or two - so what? We get 9 games a week, a national competition with in state competition pretty much nationwide (except Tassie).

Any new teams would cost the league (therefore all the clubs) money and support. (perhaps with the exception of a third club in WA, split WCE into Perth Eagles and West Coast Wombats when a Vic club merges?)

 

[Cudi_420]

I actually agree.

I don't see how clubs like Melb, North, Bulldogs contribute to the games growth, especially when club likes Melbourne are so poorly run that its own players protest against it.

Melbourne and North should merge. Be great for both clubs, could build into a massively big and successful football club.

 

[the dog's kennel]

I don't think any clubs should fold or merge.

But if I was the AFL I'd be more fearful about the future of Port than I would about North, the Demons or the Dogs.