Taxing bigger clubs could stifle AFL

[Pat_Footy]

"If you start putting caps and luxury caps on spending, you'll stifle creativity and innovation,"
What a rediculous comment. By capping spending, you will encourage innovative ideas to get a benefit with the same amount of money as other teams. Every team now going to America for altitude training is hardly innovative - the bulldogs going to a specific altitude room on the otherhand allows them to stayclose to their facilities, and agruably get similar benefits (for far less cost). The latter is innovation, the former is all about the moolah.

I just wanted to point out how ignorant this post is.
I thought it was quite obvious that the smaller clubs are benefiting from the "rich" clubs here. North Melbourne and the Dogs were not pioneers in the altitude quest - they are trailing the ideas and spending that other clubs have invested previously. This is exactly what the article is pointing out. Had there been a cap on spending, this altitude phase would never have occurred.

To say the Dogs are more innovative than the teams going to Utah is "ridiculous" as well. You really are a turkey with no education in this field whatsoever. They allow for completely different adaptations.

 

[Lensen]

I just wanted to point out how ignorant this post is.
I thought it was quite obvious that the smaller clubs are benefiting from the "rich" clubs here.

how are they benefiting when at best they are merely keeping up?

at worst they are worse off as they have to ration funds elsewhere if they believe these trips, which obviously cost money, are worthwhile

 

[Pat_Footy]

how are they benefiting when at best they are merely keeping up?

at worst they are worse off as they have to ration funds elsewhere if they believe these trips, which obviously cost money, are worthwhile

It seems you are looking at the games through a "win/loss/premiership" equalisation lens. These articles are looking at the bigger picture. Had the pioneer clubs not gone on these expeditions and sought innovation, clubs would still be using marathons as a form of training. If we are going to wait for the Dogs/North to find new ways of training - we will be waiting a long time.

Off field spending wasn't even a focus until a few years ago - another innovation of the "rich" clubs. Recruitment has only come on in the last 10 years or so. People wanting spending capped are turning a blind eye on the past.

Equalisation should start and end with the fixture imo. Money should be spent as the club seems fit.

 

[Black Diamond]

Equalisation should start and end with the fixture imo. Money should be spent as the club seems fit.

In a nutshell, this is what Lenny29 has been saying. What I want as a North supporter is the opportunity for the club to grow. I don't want us having to rely on equalisation measures forever, but the current filtering and TV schedule arrangements only exacerbate the need for redistribution.

 

[Lensen]

It seems you are looking at the games through a "win/loss/premiership" equalisation lens. These articles are looking at the bigger picture. Had the pioneer clubs not gone on these expeditions and sought innovation, clubs would still be using marathons as a form of training. If we are going to wait for the Dogs/North to find new ways of training - we will be waiting a long time.

Off field spending wasn't even a focus until a few years ago - another innovation of the "rich" clubs. Recruitment has only come on in the last 10 years or so. People wanting spending capped are turning a blind eye on the past.

Equalisation should start and end with the fixture imo. Money should be spent as the club seems fit.

Yeah, I don't really disagree. I was more attacking the point you quoted being posted from this perspective

Draw should be skewed so big clubs can benefit --> big clubs get more $$$ --> big clubs innovate such as Utah trips --> WB/NM type clubs benefit due to this innovation

Even exposure via the draw is absolutely where equalisation should lie and despite it not being the point or aim, I think it will actually be a long term financial benefit to the code. But short term thinkers are in power.

Also to clarify, I'm not saying "every club should get X Friday night/public holiday games". It's not commercially viable for 7 to pay anything for, say, GWS v Port on a Friday night in 2013. But I'd like to see the AFL work out there are, say, 56 spots up for grabs (23 rounds + 5 public holidays x 2 teams) and top 4 are guaranteed X games, top 8 Y games, 9-14 Z games and 15-18 zero games etc. Could also combat tanking to an extent too although taht's not the aim. The important thing would be the amount of games is set in stone so each team has the opportunity (not guarantee) to build their club exposure in prime time

 

[basashi]

The relative popularity of the Vic based clubs has become a vicious cycle caused by things such as prime time games (friday nights etc), blocked out slots (Anzac day etc), playing a particular team twice and so on.

We don't give these things to clubs because they are big.... they are big because we give them these things.
Sure some are bigger than others but popularity ebbs and flows over time. In 2012, popularity is a function of the last twenty years' performance and the last ten years' fixturing treatment by the AFL.
Fixtures should be written in their first draft to be entirely pure from a sporting perspective.

Then, teams should be able to apply for any other considerations....such as prime time games (friday nights etc), blocked out slots (Anzac day etc), playing a particular team twice.

BUT when the AFL gives you something you apply for, you should have to pay for it. You should pay for it with a combination of draft pick order, salary cap and cold hard cash. (bit of each, not your choice)

By doing this, you can still have your special events but the vicious cycle that is separating the Melbourne clubs into two tiers will be greatly softened. The benefit a club gets by having these things will be offset.

 

[slashin_velvet]

I just wanted to point out how ignorant this post is.
I thought it was quite obvious that the smaller clubs are benefiting from the "rich" clubs here. North Melbourne and the Dogs were not pioneers in the altitude quest - they are trailing the ideas and spending that other clubs have invested previously. This is exactly what the article is pointing out. Had there been a cap on spending, this altitude phase would never have occurred.

To say the Dogs are more innovative than the teams going to Utah is "ridiculous" as well. You really are a turkey with no education in this field whatsoever. They allow for completely different adaptations.

Economic rationale not your strong suit?

I didnt say WB are innovators for doing altitude training, what I said was they innovated the way they achieve the same benefits as other clubs (and in course spending less money and being innovators in the way it is achieved).

My point is (and let me take it back to basics) - when a market has equal factors for all competitors (buying power, selling power, etc), those who want a competitive advantage must innovate to get in front. If clubs can just spend cash to get a leg up, then the competition will become lop sided. My example of WB shows that if the field was level, they could afford to spend more money in other areas, because they innovated the way they stay competitive.

 

[Black Diamond]

The relative popularity of the Vic based clubs has become a vicious cycle caused by things such as prime time games (friday nights etc), blocked out slots (Anzac day etc), playing a particular team twice and so on.

We don't give these things to clubs because they are big.... they are big because we give them these things.
Sure some are bigger than others but popularity ebbs and flows over time. In 2012, popularity is a function of the last twenty years' performance and the last ten years' fixturing treatment by the AFL.
Fixtures should be written in their first draft to be entirely pure from a sporting perspective.

Your point is well appreciated, however I disagree with the bolded part. In the current climate certain clubs get the best fixture because they are already big. Take Hawthorn; there is no way they would get this type of exposure if the various TV arrangements in the nineties were negotiated as aggressively as today. They simply wouldn't have become a "big club". Similarly, if there was a TV deal done in the fifties as in 2011 then Melbourne would be a powerhouse. The music has effectively stopped and the current scheduling/fixturing means it will be much more difficult for a club to do a "Hawthorn" and expand as they did post 1996.

 

[iBeng]

Here here, couldn't agree more.

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

About time others step up to the plate

Look at that, a Collingwood supporter not wanting a fair competition.

Go figure.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

Look at that, a Collingwood supporter not wanting a fair competition.

Go figure.

Haha its so typical. Its almost as bad as hearing Pies supporters complaining about the draw.

On the subject, I really don't buy the line that taxing the richer clubs stifles innovation. Clubs like Collingwood, Geelong, Essendon are always going to do whatever it takes to give themselves a competitive edge, regardless of whatever taxes they might face.

 

[Obese Arachnid]

Look at that, a Collingwood supporter not wanting a fair competition.

Go figure.

How's the extra zone picks going before the rookie draft?

 

[iBeng]

How's the extra zone picks going before the rookie draft?

Good, hows your stupidly high compared to everyone elses profit going?

 

[Obese Arachnid]

Good, hows your stupidly high compared to everyone elses profit going?

Three snaps up in a "Z" formation!

 

[iBeng]

Three snaps up in a "Z" formation!

Should keep Swans habits going at least.

 

[Obese Arachnid]

Should keep Swans habits going at least.

No, I don't think he'll win another Brownlow or MVP.

 

[iBeng]

No, I don't think he'll win another Brownlow or MVP.

Yes...Those habits...habits happen often, right?

 

[Obese Arachnid]

Yes...Those habits...habits happen often, right?

Oh, Ok I'll play just this once too. As often as Vossy King Hits a bloke, happy now?

 

[theflea]

how much more money can be spent by clubs than now(by the pies)? they nearly have more coaches than players,the biggest recruiting dept and probably the biggest spend on the medical/fitness side of things. if they are going to cap the FD spend then stick it at 22m.or for every million after this maybe 10% goes into consolidated revenue for the afl.either way, for some clubs they are miles behind this and wont catch up for years to come. i cant imagine the pies needing more cash than this without reviewing all they have done previously and dropping the stuff they dont need. maybe thats the innovation we need.

 

[iBeng]

Oh, Ok I'll play just this once too. As often as Vossy King Hits a bloke, happy now?

The Coach?

 

[borrat]

gist of thread

rich club supporter and or popular club-no chance

poor club and not popular supporter-of course

supporting a middle class team i agree with the poorer clubs

essendon,carlton and collingwood can git Fossils.Academy.Reliable.Kicking ed

 

[Dan]

What your club generates in revenue is their business what they do with it.

As long as the salary cap and fixture equalisation funding to clubs remain intact, I'm not fussed.

 

[Kwality]

In a nutshell, this is what Lenny29 has been saying. What I want as a North supporter is the opportunity for the club to grow. I don't want us having to rely on equalisation measures forever, but the current filtering and TV schedule arrangements only exacerbate the need for redistribution.

I'd love to agree 100% but it wont provide the dollars needed to make many of the clubs viable.

Truth for North is they had a golden era in the 90s & it didnt produce results off ground - sadly just changing the current arrangements wont do it either.

 

[telsor]

I'd love to agree 100% but it wont provide the dollars needed to make many of the clubs viable.

Truth for North is they had a golden era in the 90s & it didnt produce results off ground - sadly just changing the current arrangements wont do it either.

I doubt it will either, but don't we owe it to such clubs to give them the chance before we talk about if they should remain in the comp?

Currently they have an arm tied behind their back, and because they can't compete like that, a lot of people here want them gone (relegate, merge, relocate, whatever).

 

[Black Diamond]

I'd love to agree 100% but it wont provide the dollars needed to make many of the clubs viable.

Truth for North is they had a golden era in the 90s & it didnt produce results off ground - sadly just changing the current arrangements wont do it either.

The main issue though is the disparity between the big and small clubs. There is a huge inflationary impact under the current system. The clubs without access to the best revenue streams subsequently struggle to match it with the clubs that do. As for our golden era of the nineties, it's too early to say if it will produce results off-ground. Hawthorn had a golden era in the eighties and only in the last three to five seasons have reaped the full rewards.

I doubt it will either, but don't we owe it to such clubs to give them the chance before we talk about if they should remain in the comp?

Currently they have an arm tied behind their back, and because they can't compete like that, a lot of people here want them gone (relegate, merge, relocate, whatever).

On your first point: definitely. There will always be a biggest club and always a smallest club, but it's a joke that clubs with 30,000+ members could be under threat.

On your second point, I think the best way to get clubs to merge or relocate is to untie their hands. If clubs were to get equal opportunities there will come a point where to maximise those opportunities they elect to move elsewhere.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

I'd love to agree 100% but it wont provide the dollars needed to make many of the clubs viable.
.

I wish someone could explain to me the viability of a club depending on a particular years balance sheet.

Truth for North is they had a golden era in the 90s & it didnt produce results off ground - sadly just changing the current arrangements wont do it either.

Membership is up 35% since 1999 despite only playing finals in 5 of the last 13 years.

Continued expansion along these lines will see membership rise to 46,000 by the time Docklands Stadium becomes and AFL owned asset in 2025. A period which includes ultimate success could see the figures bump 50K.