Taxing bigger clubs could stifle AFL

[Lensen]

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).

rugby league is not suffering from falling interest at all

if you're referring to rugby union, i'd argue less FTA exposure is harming interest in that - which kinda backs up my point re lesser clubs

 

[Ned_Flanders]

rugby league is not suffering from falling interest at all

if you're referring to rugby union, i'd argue less FTA exposure is harming interest in that - which kinda backs up my point re lesser clubs

definitely union - it benefited initially from the league/union trade wars, but recently league has been biting back with a vengeance.

Used to prefer rugby, but will watch league over it any day now.

People also need to watch some of the old vfl games from the 70's - no way would that standard be acceptable to the punter now, we expect much more, and that costs money (both in terms of training and player quality).

If you want just two teams playing for fun, best to go back to watching the VFL (which is a good day out - just a very different experience)

 

[Lensen]

People also need to watch some of the old vfl games from the 70's - no way would that standard be acceptable to the punter now, we expect much more, and that costs money (both in terms of training and player quality).

If you want just two teams playing for fun, best to go back to watching the VFL (which is a good day out - just a very different experience)

costs money, sure, doesn't mean it needs $240mill in TV revenue + all the rest every year to facilitate it though

don't really understand your last point - i want to watch teams playing for a premiership, but i'd want that at every level. without that then what do we have?

 

[Sttew]

Here here, couldn't agree more.

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

About time others step up to the plate

Well I will disagree.
Simple facts are that spending on players is capped, but to date clubs can spend whatever they want on facilities and support staff. Facilities is fair enough, but with the gap between the rich and poor clubs widening, unless a "luxury tax" is introduced we could conceivably end up with the likes of Collingwood employing as many coaches as players as it tries to find that competitive edge.

Is the league not saying to the likes of Collingwood - you can spend what you like on coaching staff and the like, but if its over $X then you pay a tax that is shared with the poorer clubs..."? Whats unfair about that?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

costs money, sure, doesn't mean it needs $240mill in TV revenue + all the rest every year to facilitate it though

don't really understand your last point - i want to watch teams playing for a premiership, but i'd want that at every level. without that then what do we have?

winning flags is different to what tv viewers want to watch though - they want to watch the best players playing a good game - remember most viewers don't actually follow either side. WTF do I care if the Pies get a flag, I hate them, but I watch them because they play good footy. Start having lesser players in the game, people stop watching neutral games, and go elsewhere for their entertainment.

 

[Lensen]

winning flags is different to what tv viewers want to watch though - they want to watch the best players playing a good game - remember most viewers don't actually follow either side. WTF do I care if the Pies get a flag, I hate them, but I watch them because they play good footy. Start having lesser players in the game, people stop watching neutral games, and go elsewhere for their entertainment.

ahh right, i was talking on an overall following of the game basis - you were talking on an individual game by game basis. gotcha. i'd still argue that most viewers have some sort of emotional involvement, even if not their team directly - betting, tipping, hating one of the sides - but that's just my feel and i have nothing about the game

i do query though the " Start having lesser players in the game, people stop watching neutral games, and go elsewhere for their entertainment." - they can still earn a good income, how many blokes choose another sport over footy? how many are good enough to do so? yeah your deledios, keaths etc are good enough to choose but that would be 1% of the players at most - i'd be staggered if this has an impact on peoples enjoyment of the game above other factors. is it worth creating an unsustainable financial arms race to keep this 1%? i'd suggest strongly that it is not

 

[bombermick]

Great to see Evans taking a stand. If Collingwood, WCE, Adel and Ess stick together on this, there's no way the AFL can force this through.

Innovation won't occur if football department spending is capped to the lowest common denominator.

 

[Papa G]

definitely union - it benefited initially from the league/union trade wars, but recently league has been biting back with a vengeance.

Used to prefer rugby, but will watch league over it any day now.

People also need to watch some of the old vfl games from the 70's - no way would that standard be acceptable to the punter now, we expect much more, and that costs money (both in terms of training and player quality).

If you want just two teams playing for fun, best to go back to watching the VFL (which is a good day out - just a very different experience)

How many Victorian kids who have played and followed Aussie Rules footy their whole lives will suddenly switch codes or entire sports because they are getting $500,000 a year instead of $600,000? Answer - None.

 

[tacopavlich]

Great to see Evans taking a stand. If Collingwood, WCE, Adel and Ess stick together on this, there's no way the AFL can force this through.

Innovation won't occur if football department spending is capped to the lowest common denominator.

Shouldn't be relevant if those clubs are against it. It's expected they will be looking out for there own interest rather than the competition, that's up to the AFL to decide.

 

[LouisCK]

Great to see Evans taking a stand. If Collingwood, WCE, Adel and Ess stick together on this, there's no way the AFL can force this through.

Innovation won't occur if football department spending is capped to the lowest common denominator.

Innovatin rarely comes from the 'haves' in society, because they have nothing to strive for.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

How many Victorian kids who have played and followed Aussie Rules footy their whole lives will suddenly switch codes or entire sports because they are getting $500,000 a year instead of $600,000? Answer - None.

because we are actually playing the best wages, we are benefiting from this. AFL is getting converts from basketball in particular, with a number of players only playing proper footy around 15. If you had a choice of a career path in the NBL or the AFL, the AFL looks a lot more promising. Also cricket has been complaining that it has been losing a lot of its junior talent to AFL in the southern states, and have actually this year started a program to try and reverse this trend.

If the average player wage were to half, it would be naive to this AFL would provide the same attraction in terms of career path for non-AFL talent (esp as we are the only game with no chance of representing your country (in a game that matters))

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Innovatin rarely comes from the 'haves' in society, because they have nothing to strive for.

Theoretically, we could end up with a system where grossly wealthy clubs could buy up coaches, sports physios, strategists etc just to deny poorer clubs the next best options.

It needs to be capped and it will be capped.

 

[Lensen]

because we are actually playing the best wages, we are benefiting from this. AFL is getting converts from basketball in particular, with a number of players only playing proper footy around 15. If you had a choice of a career path in the NBL or the AFL, the AFL looks a lot more promising. Also cricket has been complaining that it has been losing a lot of its junior talent to AFL in the southern states, and have actually this year started a program to try and reverse this trend.

If the average player wage were to half, it would be naive to this AFL would provide the same attraction in terms of career path for non-AFL talent (esp as we are the only game with no chance of representing your country (in a game that matters))

Yeah halving the average afl wage is going to make the average nbl wage more appealing lol

Cricket and footy generally have different skill sets so it's a very small percentage that can be elite at both

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Yeah halving the average afl wage is going to make the average nbl wage more appealing lol

Cricket and footy generally have different skill sets so it's a very small percentage that can be elite at both

No, but NHL with a shot to play in the us or eu eventually is a different story.

Players are professionals these days, Folau and SBW are showing that.

Also our game is more built on athletes than pure footballers these days, their skills are transferable.

 

[Kwality]

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.

How does football department spending relate to taxing ?

Duck & weave, his mob get preferential treatment FIXturing & doesnt want any of the gains taxed.

 

[Ironmonger]

This might be an interesting discussion if Evans had actually said why he thinks a spending cap would reduce innovation, or a luxury tax wouldn't work.​

​

Was anyone on BF at the AGM? Did he expand on those points?​

 

[00Stinger]

Great to see Evans taking a stand. If Collingwood, WCE, Adel and Ess stick together on this, there's no way the AFL can force this through.

Innovation won't occur if football department spending is capped to the lowest common denominator.

Bullshit. It will help create innovation as clubs will have to find a way to be creative as all clubs will be equal

 

[Jezzitizle]

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.

Rubbish, there are historical reasons each club has a different off field position now, its not the richer clubs responsibility to play daddy to those clubs who didn't set themselves up quite as well. When Melbourne are in the top four instead of tanking in order to ruin the best young talent, they will start getting the big games. You have the queens birthday, which could be a great spot on the calender if the Dees were in the hunt for finals.

But anyway, if you are disappointed to be playing GC and GWS then I'm sure we can swap you GC at GC for West Coast at Pattersons.

The solution for smaller clubs is not to introduce socialism, its to get the heck better. The Dees are the oldest club in the league, if they haven't capitalised on their head start its only their own fault, and only their own responsibility.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Rubbish, there are historical reasons each club has a different off field position now, its not the richer clubs responsibility to play daddy to those clubs who didn't set themselves up quite as well.

Classic comments from inside the goldfish bowl.

The Victorian clubs did not appear out of nowhere and on an even keel in 1990.

You have no historical understanding of the complexities of Victorian football whatsoever.

 

[Pessimistic]

Theoretically, we could end up with a system where grossly wealthy clubs could buy up coaches, sports physios, strategists etc just to deny poorer clubs the next best options.

It needs to be capped and it will be capped.

We already saw that with mguire and malthouse

Eddie didn't want him, but was peeved he would actually coach somewhere else.

And he did the whole thing because Bucks was going to go to north melbourne

 

[Frank Grimes]

I don''t believe there should be a cap on football department spending. But I would support an equalistion tax based on fixturing. In other words the prime time fixtures (such as Friday night games) will be taxed and distributed to the less dirable time slots (who ever is playing on in the Sunday Twilight game).

I don''t think there is anything wrong with inequality in how much a club spends on their football department or making a profit because I don''t think a club should be punished for being successful off field. I do however think there is something wrong in the profits made in the inequality in the fixture.

 

[wandering123]

I don''t believe there should be a cap on football department spending. But I would support an equalistion tax based on fixturing. In other words the prime time fixtures (such as Friday night games) will be taxed and distributed to the less dirable time slots (who ever is playing on in the Sunday Twilight game).

I don''t think there is anything wrong with inequality in how much a club spends on their football department or making a profit because I don''t think a club should be punished for being successful off field. I do however think there is something wrong in the profits made in the inequality in the fixture.

I'm sure Tef would be better equipped to answer this. Anyway - this is what the unequal distribution from the AFL given to most clubs (however more notably North and WB) is for. It compensates us for poor fixturing and their joke of a stadium deal.

 

[Richo83]

Saying capping or taxing the football department will discourage innovation and innovative types coming to football is like saying capping player payments will decrease the quality skill of the players playing the game, and will discourage skillful players coming to the sport. Evans is basically saying we need as much money as possible to attract and allow for the best innovation possible, I guess we should just get rid of the salary cap so Collingwood and Essendon have the best athletes they can have right?

Taxation works, just ask any government. If Evans and the like really believe that clubs wont be able to innovate within say a 16mil football department budget, then maybe they need to think harder about why they're unable to innovate in the first place. Innovation isn't just about money and if having unparalleled access to finds allowed companies to be innovative, then why is it that companies like AT&T and microsoft are anything but? It sounds like Evans is basically saying: "we need all the money in the world to waste money on back offices, and then eventually get around to innovation".

For the record, just because a code is innovative doesn't make that innovation a good in itself. Equality is also something the afl should and is striving for.

 

[Frank Grimes]

I really can't see why the need for a cap on football department spending anyway. People are making out that teams such as the Bulldogs and Kangaroos with poor football department spending will never be successful. Yet the Kangaroos and Bulldogs have done better than a cashed up club like Essendon over the last 7-8 years and have been "there abouts" of the premiership.

 

[Richo83]

His argument about innovation doesn't wash. Competition drives innovation as clubs, people and businesses try to find new ways to succeed. If the big clubs are allowed, via their financial power gained from favorable fixturing, to purchase the best staff, will they actually innovate, or will they merely engage in what needs to be done to beat the poorer clubs? Sure, some clubs see innovation as a good, but it's a relative good in relation to whether it achieves success in beating poorer clubs.