Taxing bigger clubs could stifle AFL

[Blues098]

Besides, Evans is talking about capping Football department spending and not equalisation in general

 

[Ketchup]

I don't know I thought the standard of football was pretty high when we knocked you off this year....well I'd probably rate the Shaw dummy spit at 8/10. Was entertaining.

Yea it was looking that way. Until West Coast completely and utter dominated you and put a disgrace to the finals series and proved that your victory was a complete fluke. Not to mention the pounding Hawthorn gave you aswell this year. Im not sure about you but i like my seasons without 100 point losses or even games with that big a margin.

Im sure ill see the same thing from your rabble next year aswell as you linger down the bottom half of the table were you belong.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

I hope you are taking the piss.

It's a sporting body that conducts business for the benefit of the sporting body.

Laissez faire economics do not apply here.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Yea it was looking that way. Until West Coast completely and utter dominated you and put a disgrace to the finals series and proved that your victory was a complete fluke. Not to mention the pounding Hawthorn gave you aswell this year. Im not sure about you but i like my seasons without 100 point losses or even games with that big a margin.

Im sure ill see the same thing from your rabble next year aswell as you linger down the bottom half of the table were you belong.

Joshen:

 

[Tragic sainter]

I would centralise all finances and distribute them equally. The AFL should have it's own "football innovation" department. This centralisation of resources is more cost effective and removes all financial ambiguity from the competition..

Then what would be the incentive for the bigger clubs to go and find money though sponsors and other various avenue? The league would quickly crumble because nobody would have to find money to gain an advantage so nobody would find money. I don't think your logic works.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Then what would be the incentive for the bigger clubs to go and find money though sponsors and other various avenue?

Nothing. The clubs could focus on what they are primarily supposed to focus on, football.

The AFL could auction sponsors rights and assign them to clubs.

If Toyota wanted to promote themselves via the Adelaide Crows then they just place the highest bid with the AFL for the right to do so.

There are far too many non football parasites that are leeching off the game. These should certainly go before any club should be sacrificed.

Should a club like the Bulldogs have to fall by the wayside because they don't have a saturated market and the resources to buy 55 coaches and associated hangers on? HELL NO!

The league would quickly crumble because nobody would have to find money to gain an advantage so nobody would find money. I don't think your logic works.

Rubbish.

 

[Tas]

I don't want my club to be forced to get into pokies because every other Victorian club does. The problem is everyone is talking about other revenue streams. They should not be necessary to run a successful AFL club. There should be enough money generated from playing the game to fund a football team and clubs can generate additional revenue to build assets and safeguard their club, but it shouldn't be a requirement.

All clubs are doing is finding more ways to fleece their members.

AFL's #1 problem is the problem they created with the contracts to MCC and Docklands which guarantee games and attendances. The kind of innovation Evans likes is the status quo where St Kilda, Bulldogs and North subsidise Essendon to play at the Docklands or were the AFL rolls out the red carpet to guarantee favourabe fixtures to the rich clubs to meet these contractual obligations.

AFL doesn't have any more money, most of the gains we have made from the pay-tv era have either gone directly and indirectly to players or has been committed to the expansion clubs. The AFL only has two effective mechanism to prevent rich clubs having a substantial on-field advantage, that is to tax or to cap spending.

Evans said taxing wont work, it works in the NFL.

There is no realistic way you can create a level playing field when the AFL has created a system which systematically rapes the smaller clubs with the stadium scenario the AFL created. We are stuck for a long time to meet the requirements of these stadiums, the AFL has very few options or mechanisms left to achieve their objective of on-field equality.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

spending shouldn't be capped. how clubs spend their money is up to them, and there is no perfect formula.

Some will spend it well, some will buy primary schools (Pies), lose trade wars (Richmond), or build a stand no one will sit in (Blues).

Point is its up to them how much they spend and where.

The issue of the footy dept costs war needs to focus on revenues. The clubs who spend a tonne do so because they have high incomes, often assisted by better timeslots, stadium deals, and FTA access (not I'm not saying its the only factor, or the biggest factor - just that its a significant one). AFL should continue to provide equalization funds for clubs disadvantaged on these terms, and thats it.

 

[Lensen]

The issue of the footy dept costs war needs to focus on revenues. The clubs who spend a tonne do so because they have high incomes, often assisted by better timeslots, stadium deals, and FTA access (not I'm not saying its the only factor, or the biggest factor - just that its a significant one). AFL should continue to provide equalization funds for clubs disadvantaged on these terms, and thats it.

but then lesser clubs can never become bigger clubs - they can never get access to kids becoming new supporters (at least comparatively) because on the whole, kids don't want to support teams they can only see 4-5 times a year on tv

 

[LouisCK]

Here here, couldn't agree more.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2012-12-20/evans

About time others step up to the plate

Just more 1% propaganda. Taxing the rich more actually coincided with the most prosperous and innovative time in history, so taxing rich clubs (and what we do isn't 'taxing' anyway) is unlikely to stop innovation.

But its just clearly a bit of Liberal party spin, voiced in relation to footy to fool a few thousand moronic Essendon supporters.

Hang your head in shame.

 

[theflea]

Just more 1% propaganda. Taxing the rich more actually coincided with the most prosperous and innovative time in history, so taxing rich clubs (and what we do isn't 'taxing' anyway) is unlikely to stop innovation.

But its just clearly a bit of Liberal party spin, voiced in relation to footy to fool a few thousand moronic Essendon supporters.

Hang your head in shame.

what? as opposed to Labor spin? spare me. they all talk crap.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Just more 1% propaganda. Taxing the rich more actually coincided with the most prosperous and innovative time in history, so taxing rich clubs (and what we do isn't 'taxing' anyway) is unlikely to stop innovation.

But its just clearly a bit of Liberal party spin, voiced in relation to footy to fool a few thousand moronic Essendon supporters.

Hang your head in shame.

Have you checked out his business?

This is what appears on the webpage under "investment philosophy"

If you are sitting in Melbourne and wish to drive to Sydney, you have two choices. You can take the safest, quickest and cheapest route and go directly up the Hume Highway or you can go via Perth, a somewhat riskier, longer and more expensive option (including an opportunity cost). Although the Perth option does come with a materially higher buzz factor, the rational traveler won’t spend much time deliberating over which option to take.

http://www.evansandpartners.com.au/ourcompany

I mean, for ****s sake.

He's an investment broker. There is no "Evans and Partners research institute". He turns money in to more money. That's it.

He wouldn't know true innovation if it walked up and bit him on the arse.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

but then lesser clubs can never become bigger clubs - they can never get access to kids becoming new supporters (at least comparatively) because on the whole, kids don't want to support teams they can only see 4-5 times a year on tv

being a bigger supported club doesn't get you on the box. I barrack for Richmond and have lived on Foxtel in recent years. Success is the other factor (with both being balanced against each other).

the smaller clubs will get their exposure when they are winning games, and then they have to make the most of it. Again though, if they fail to capitalize on these periods, thats something they have to live with (i.e. North failing to get the full value out of their years with Carey)

 

[FredLeDeux]

Besides, Evans is talking about capping Football department spending and not equalisation in general

No he's not, he's just another Right Wing, loony tunes, flat earther.
"Things like capping football expenditure and luxury taxes and things frankly don't work."

 

[Lensen]

being a bigger supported club doesn't get you on the box. I barrack for Richmond and have lived on Foxtel in recent years. Success is the other factor (with both being balanced against each other).

the smaller clubs will get their exposure when they are winning games, and then they have to make the most of it. Again though, if they fail to capitalize on these periods, thats something they have to live with (i.e. North failing to get the full value out of their years with Carey)

but it's still not close to a level playing field. essendon have been mid table at best for years yet get stacks of FTA prime time games. collingwood and carlton get disproportionately more as well. i'm at work so don't have access to the figures but i'd be staggered if since 2008 the Western Bulldogs had as many Friday night/standalone FTA games as Carlton despite having been much more successful over this period

Why would any sponsor want to partner long term with the Dogs knowing they're 12 months away from getting almost no exposure, when they can go to Collingwood or Essendon and know whether the team is top 4 or mediocre they'll get more exposure anyway?

edit: i'm not actually averse to tying in FTA exposure to ladder position the previous year - i.e. top 4 guarantees you X amount of Friday/stand alone games, top 8 guarantees you Y - as long as it's across the board and not simply a stupidly low minimum amount that gives one or two token games

 

[boncer34]

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.

And yet the decade after we started a long term growth plan which has paid off handsomely.

North however were the "Team of the 90's," played multiple Friday nights, had blockbuster crowds and one of the greatest players to ever play the game and you sat on your hands and did diddly squat.

Now you have the audacity to bitch because the comp is uneven?

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

And yet the decade after we started a long term growth plan which has paid off handsomely.

North however were the "Team of the 90's," played multiple Friday nights, had blockbuster crowds and one of the greatest players to ever play the game and you sat on your hands and did diddly squat.

Now you have the audacity to bitch because the comp is uneven?

Your rationale is flawed from the outset.

Only the truly deluded would equate the 1997 AFL fiscal model with the 2012 fiscal model.

You may as well be comparing a Model T Ford with a Lamborghini.

 

[boncer34]

Your rationale is flawed from the outset.

Only the truly deluded would equate the 1997 AFL fiscal model with the 2012 fiscal model.

You may as well be comparing a Model T Ford with a Lamborghini.

I wasn't doing that at all.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

but it's still not close to a level playing field. essendon have been mid table at best for years yet get stacks of FTA prime time games. collingwood and carlton get disproportionately more as well. i'm at work so don't have access to the figures but i'd be staggered if since 2008 the Western Bulldogs had as many Friday night/standalone FTA games as Carlton despite having been much more successful over this period

Why would any sponsor want to partner long term with the Dogs knowing they're 12 months away from getting almost no exposure, when they can go to Collingwood or Essendon and know whether the team is top 4 or mediocre they'll get more exposure anyway?

edit: i'm not actually averse to tying in FTA exposure to ladder position the previous year - i.e. top 4 guarantees you X amount of Friday/stand alone games, top 8 guarantees you Y - as long as it's across the board and not simply a stupidly low minimum amount that gives one or two token games

with tv, ultimately the network chooses. And they choose teams people of any persuasion are wanting to watch. Essendon had a mini trough, so it was never going to hit you much because you still have a perception of bring a strong side. Dogs always have to fight to convince punters they are a contender and worth watching, so it takes longer to get viewers onto them (and quicker for them to drop off).

in a perfect world, draw and tv would be equal, but this will never happen. AFL compensating those who cop the pineapple then imo is the best of a bunch of poor options.

 

[LouisCK]

Bingo. Like I said, its propaganda.

Bloke should be hung for this treasonous shit.

 

[theRainbowGame]

A hard cap where everyone is capped to certain amount of spending would be catastrophic for the game.

We need a system where the most a club can spend on football department is equal to double the amount the lowest spender spent the year before.

This way we force clubs to help each other to achieve greater revenue streams but also prevent clubs stopping any innovation.

Clubs such the Bulldogs and Giants are required due to their significance in growing football amongst new-australians.

 

[Lensen]

with tv, ultimately the network chooses. And they choose teams people of any persuasion are wanting to watch. Essendon had a mini trough, so it was never going to hit you much because you still have a perception of bring a strong side. Dogs always have to fight to convince punters they are a contender and worth watching, so it takes longer to get viewers onto them (and quicker for them to drop off).

in a perfect world, draw and tv would be equal, but this will never happen. AFL compensating those who cop the pineapple then imo is the best of a bunch of poor options.

and the AFL saying "yep, you choose, that's fine" is the reason why this is a business and not a sporting competition

if they took $800m for the rights rather than $1.2b, the game won't miss the $400m - the associated hangers on might, the players might have to do with an average wage of $200k rather than $250k, but would give the AFL more control over their fixture and allow teams to compete on a more even basis

having 18 strong clubs (or at least the ability for all 18 clubs to tbe strong) might take 20 years but in the long term the TV rights $$$ value will probably be higher. but whilst there is this short term "we must make the most cash from the current rights" stuff then we have a business running a disequal sporting event

 

[Ned_Flanders]

and the AFL saying "yep, you choose, that's fine" is the reason why this is a business and not a sporting competition

if they took $800m for the rights rather than $1.2b, the game won't miss the $400m - the associated hangers on might, the players might have to do with an average wage of $200k rather than $250k, but would give the AFL more control over their fixture and allow teams to compete on a more even basis

having 18 strong clubs (or at least the ability for all 18 clubs to tbe strong) might take 20 years but in the long term the TV rights $$$ value will probably be higher. but whilst there is this short term "we must make the most cash from the current rights" stuff then we have a business running a disequal sporting event

AFL don't want this though, they aim to be the premier sporting club in the country, and this means paying the players, support staff, coaches and so on the best, so that you attract the best.

Your $400m loss may result in a better draw, but it may also result in likes of Brett Deledio choosing Shield cricket over the AFL (in the hope of playing for Australia), or league/rugby/etc.

I'm actually suprised your arguing this though - the Pies are one of the main proponents of the current structure, at its supports their ambition to become Australia's Man U

 

[Lensen]

AFL don't want this though, they aim to be the premier sporting club in the country, and this means paying the players, support staff, coaches and so on the best, so that you attract the best.

Your $400m loss may result in a better draw, but it may also result in likes of Brett Deledio choosing Shield cricket over the AFL (in the hope of playing for Australia), or league/rugby/etc.

I'm actually suprised your arguing this though - the Pies are one of the main proponents of the current structure, at its supports their ambition to become Australia's Man U

i'm not arguing that what I am saying is what the AFL want, I'm arguing what is fair and right

if brett deledio picks another sport, good on him. if he's an excellent cricketer too then that's great for the country's national side. unless you're a zealot who goes by the "AFL SHOULD BE THE ONLY SPORT ANYONE CHOOSES TO PLAY" rubbish then it's not a big deal.

anyone who lets their footy club supported define their ideology is someone i truly feel for

 

[Ned_Flanders]

i'm not arguing that what I am saying is what the AFL want, I'm arguing what is fair and right

if brett deledio picks another sport, good on him. if he's an excellent cricketer too then that's great for the country's national side. unless you're a zealot who goes by the "AFL SHOULD BE THE ONLY SPORT ANYONE CHOOSES TO PLAY" rubbish then it's not a big deal.

anyone who lets their footy club supported define their ideology is someone i truly feel for

unfortunately people want to see the best sport these days, and if the quality of the game falls due to better players going elsewhere, interest in the game falls (just look at rugby these days).