Here here, couldn't agree more.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2012-12-20/evans
About time others step up to the plate
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2012-12-20/evans
About time others step up to the plate
Taxing bigger clubs could stifle AFL
- Thread starter malteaser
- Start date
- Tagged users None
When a club gets favoured by the FIXture it should share that benefit ($s), not keep it all for themselves.
West Coast get an additional game every 2nd year v Freo, with Freo benefitting in the other year - why should they keep 100% of their extra profit, not turnover, profit.
David Evans using words like taxing is good emotive stuff, but Essendon should contribute where it gets beneficial treatment.
Clearly some clubs need help ($s), its how it is funded that Evans is on about.
Dont take my comments as support for the current club structure, but given its not about to change, Evans has raised the question of who pays.
West Coast get an additional game every 2nd year v Freo, with Freo benefitting in the other year - why should they keep 100% of their extra profit, not turnover, profit.
David Evans using words like taxing is good emotive stuff, but Essendon should contribute where it gets beneficial treatment.
Clearly some clubs need help ($s), its how it is funded that Evans is on about.
Dont take my comments as support for the current club structure, but given its not about to change, Evans has raised the question of who pays.
- Feb 19, 2011
- 3,676
- 4,984
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Probably disagree myself.
AFL isn't a business for the profit of particular stakeholders but rather the long term viability and growth of the game (guessing what the charter says).
On the flipside is the incentivisation of clubs to become financially viable. The AFL can't aimlessly subsidise in this space.
My problem with Evans is the crude use of the word 'tax', (works for Abbott I guess) and that he doesn't back up saying it won't work with any objective evidence either, comes across as rhetoric. I understand he has vested interests to protect so that's his imperative.
Innovation will continue whilst the competition to do so remains. Fair bit of coin to be had in being a successful club....
AFL isn't a business for the profit of particular stakeholders but rather the long term viability and growth of the game (guessing what the charter says).
On the flipside is the incentivisation of clubs to become financially viable. The AFL can't aimlessly subsidise in this space.
My problem with Evans is the crude use of the word 'tax', (works for Abbott I guess) and that he doesn't back up saying it won't work with any objective evidence either, comes across as rhetoric. I understand he has vested interests to protect so that's his imperative.
Innovation will continue whilst the competition to do so remains. Fair bit of coin to be had in being a successful club....
telsor
Hall of Famer
This, and tax showing sides on FTA TV.
Big clubs get most games shown on FTA, allowing them to get more money from sponsors? No problem, but surely they can chip in to help clubs who get less exposure (also affects ability to recruit additional supporters).
AFL should treat all clubs the same. If some clubs have better revenue streams than others then good on them because they've earnt it. No need to be Robin Hood and take from the rich and give to the poor
telsor
Hall of Famer
Cool, you can play home games against Collingwood & Essendon in Tassie this year...As Sunday twilight games, on Foxtel.
Or is equality in the form of a (random) fixture & TV converage not what you're thinking of?
I am talking in terms of handouts and fixturing
Bluelegs
Digging into the why
Ok then the afl should fixture all clubs to have equal timeslots and FTA slots. Not to mention blockbuster home games and so forth.
- Aug 9, 2012
- 11,162
- 6,125
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Banned
- #11
....and yet another greed thread bites the dust.
How is it possible for a small club to have blockbusters?
Bluelegs
Digging into the why
You're missing the point. If you want the afl to treat clubs equally then you need to equalise games that every club has against small clubs and big clubs. Rather than melbourne or north having to play against gws and gold coast twice while essendon and collingwood play each other multiple times as well as hawthorn, richmond and so on.
So you think if this happened, and the AFL took away all handouts to clubs, Melbourne would be in a better position?
- Aug 9, 2012
- 11,162
- 6,125
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Banned
- #15
The beauty of hypotheticals is that they apply equally to every club.
If Matthew Knights was still coach of essendon then the club would now be bankrupt.
See how it's done?
You should cast your eyes back to the 1970's when essendon were completely crap for an entire decade and take note of the crowds of less than 10K at Windy Hill.
If Matthew Knights was still coach of essendon then the club would now be bankrupt.
See how it's done?
You should cast your eyes back to the 1970's when essendon were completely crap for an entire decade and take note of the crowds of less than 10K at Windy Hill.
If the minnow clubs get an equal share of the best timeslots then the TV rights would be far less valuable and those small clubs would get an equal share of a much smaller pie. Probably wouldn't survive.
Bluelegs
Digging into the why
Well we're not really in a bad position as is financially. But if we didn't get as many double up games against small clubs and more games against big clubs as well as having an equal number of friday night, saturday night, sunday twilight games and so on, as every other club then yeah I expect we'd basically be in a similar if not better position. The taxing is simply to fix the inequalities produced by the AFL. They give the big clubs a cake mix and then take some of the slices back to give to the clubs that didn't get any cake to begin with.
I find it funny that Essendon were readily taking handouts from the govt to build their training facility this year but are now getting upset when the AFL tries to take something back from their own investment via the fixture.
telsor
Hall of Famer
Why not?
Essendon vs Collingwood twice might make more money than North vs GWS twice, but if clubs that make that extra money aren't taxed and (some of) the money redistributed, then it's clearly an unfair system.
If you get the good games (teams, timeslots & TV coverage), then you should fork out to those who get the crap games.
The Prosecutor
Brownlow Medallist
- Sep 13, 2011
- 12,271
- 19,516
- AFL Club
- Essendon
You're completely missing the point Evans is making.
Evans is speaking about equilisation when it comes to Football Department spending, not equalisation in general.
The Prosecutor
Brownlow Medallist
- Sep 13, 2011
- 12,271
- 19,516
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Whether they'd be better or not is irrelevant
What it would do is give them the opportunity to get better comparatively to the big clubs, rather than this death by 1000 cuts they have now where they are compensated for inequality but have less exposure to make a long term difference
Yeah, the additional 50,000 tickets that game sells really does boost the bottom line of both clubs.
oh wait
telsor
Hall of Famer
I took it as being a more general comment, although football spending is the only point specifically mentioned.
para 2: "Bombers chairman David Evans has baulked at the prospect of further equalisation measures, as the gap between rich and poor AFL clubs continues to grow." seems a lot broader than just football dept.
The Prosecutor
Brownlow Medallist
- Sep 13, 2011
- 12,271
- 19,516
- AFL Club
- Essendon
That's just dodgy wording by the author.
All the quotes by Evans refers to bringing in equalisation methods for football department spending.
"We won't be taxed anymore – as long as I am in this role."
"If you start putting caps and luxury caps on spending, you'll stifle creativity and innovation,"
"Clubs should be incentivised to grow the game, things like capping football expenditure and luxury taxes and things frankly don't work."
Similar threads
- Poll
