Taxing bigger clubs could stifle AFL

[forwardflanker]

All the wealthy care about is defending the status quo.

Actually the chattering classes tend to vote left because they can afford change. It's the lower-middle class "Howard battlers" who want to keep the status quo. In footballing terms this would be predominantly Essendon supporters.

 

[forwardflanker]

The logical conclusion is that they fear a level playing field.

Well the other side of the coin is that the weaker clubs are terrified of a competition based on true meritocracy. It can be simplified down to whether people would prefer a system of handouts rewarding clubs who fail, or a system that rewards those who run the most efficient clubs. I'm pretty sure I know which one I'd prefer to live in. You can always move to China you know

 

[Husk]

Well the other side of the coin is that the weaker clubs are terrified of a competition based on true meritocracy. It can be simplified down to whether people would prefer a system of handouts rewarding clubs who fail, or a system that rewards those who run the most efficient clubs. I'm pretty sure I know which one I'd prefer to live in. You can always move to China you know

I would look forward to your views on this glorious "Meritocracy" when you or one of your friends or family are cast aside for being sick, injured or even having the temerity of being born with a disability.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Well the other side of the coin is that the weaker clubs are terrified of a competition based on true meritocracy.

You should give away football and go and support the Dow Jones Index.

 

[piesaregreat]

All the wealthy care about is defending the status quo.

Your assumption is that the wealthy have always been wealthy.
Go back twelve years Collingwood was nearly broke.
Hard work and innovation got us to the position we are in.
The status quo then was near bankruptcy.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Your assumption is that the wealthy have always been wealthy.
Go back twelve years Collingwood was nearly broke.
Hard work and innovation got us to the position we are in.
The status quo then was near bankruptcy.

Collingwood are no great modern success story. It was gross incompetence that put them on their backsides in the first place.

In a truly free market you aren't given an arm chair ride by the governing authority either. Collingwood are strong because the AFL made it that way.

 

[Husk]

In a truly free market you aren't given an arm chair ride by the governing authority either. Collingwood are strong because the AFL made it that way.

No, no, no it was all hard work.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

No, no, no it was all hard work.

It was the historical good fortune of being spawned in a Victorian era high population industrial hub that gained momentum via early generation success and the suburban sprawl of the 30's, 40's, 50, 60's, 70's and 80's.

Momentum has been maintained in the modern era via AFL marketing pouncing on and expanding a pre existing demographic.

 

[boncer34]

Your assumption is that the wealthy have always been wealthy.
Go back twelve years Collingwood was nearly broke.
Hard work and innovation got us to the position we are in.
The status quo then was near bankruptcy.

And North were coming off a golden decade.

Collingwood recognised their short comings and put in the hard yards to become the powerhouse they are.

North however sat on their hands and waited for everyone else to hand it to them.

Its a trend that's continued for the past decade.

 

[LouisCK]

Not really.

North couldn't capitalise on a golden era. I fail to see why we should bail you out.

As much as I loathe most of the NMFC supporters here, they never had a level playing field.

As he said, the rich dislike a level playing field, shit, why do you think the winter olympics exist?

 

[LouisCK]

And North were coming off a golden decade.

Collingwood recognised their short comings and put in the hard yards to become the powerhouse they are.

North however sat on their hands and waited for everyone else to hand it to them.

Its a trend that's continued for the past decade.

Just so you know, if there was any kind of revolution happening, people like you would be the first ones lined up against the cement and executed. Just FYI. If you want to increase ur life expectancy u should start using ur brain a bit more.

 

[boncer34]

As much as I loathe most of the NMFC supporters here, they never had a level playing field.

As he said, the rich dislike a level playing field, shit, why do you think the winter olympics exist?

So in the 90's when they were on FTA almost every week, played in the best time slots and had bumper crowds your saying North didn't have a leg up over other sides?

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

So in the 90's when they were on FTA almost every week, played in the best time slots and had bumper crowds your saying North didn't have a leg up over other sides?

What year did the AFL hand gate takings back to the clubs?

 

[boncer34]

What year did the AFL hand gate takings back to the clubs?

So what? As you pointed out so gleefully earlier Essendon were a rabble in the 70's and we got our shit together in the 80's.

Are you gonna tell me it was harder in the 90's then the 80's?

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

So what? As you pointed out so gleefully earlier Essendon were a rabble in the 70's and we got our shit together in the 80's.

Are you gonna tell me it was harder in the 90's then the 80's?

What year did the AFL hand gate takings back to the clubs?

 

[The_Wookie]

What year did the AFL hand gate takings back to the clubs?

Gate receipts have been handed back to the clubs for a long time.

Clubs received gate reciepts in the 1930s, as it was reported in a paper in 1997 (History of Player Recruitment, Transfer and Payment Rules in the V/AFL, Booth, 1997, pg 17) that due primarily to poor performance Norths gate receipts were poor and they couldnt afford to pay players much or bid against the richer clubs for interstate players. The paper says that only Collingwood, Carlton and Richmond were financially strong during this period.

In 1946, The Argus (April 13th - "Pooling VFL receipts") reported that the league intended to split gate revenue in the following manner:

• All 12 league clubs would place 75% of gate receipts into a common pool which would be split at the end of the season equally by all clubs.
• Clubs would receive 60 pounds per week for ground expenses.

The VFL had a committee that decided upon the split as far back as the 60s where reciepts were the majority of a clubs income. By the 80s that had changed, there was still a VFL committee but the receipts were split amongst all clubs, at least until 1985. During this period Geelong, St Kilda, Fitzroy, Footscray, Collingwood and Sydney were all basically bankrupt despite the equalisation measures.

A paper in 1985 (Sporting Traditions, RK Stewart, 1985, pg 4) states that the VFL collected all gate receipts and used them as follows:

• $0.25 from all Adult admissions during Home and Away matches taken for the VFL ground improvement fund
• 15% for VFL administration
• 40% for the competing clubs, split 50/50
• 25% for the ground managers (ie. local councils in many cases)
• 20% remaining split equally by all clubs at the end of the season. (the paper refers to this as an equalisation fund AND IT WAS 1985!

The real answer to your question though might be when did the AFL end the 50/50 revenue sharing arrangement.

According to Ross Booth in 2005 - anyone seriously asking this question should read his paper on Economic Effects of changes to Gate sharing arrangements. In 1998, the AFL decided that revenue sharing had not worked as an equalisation measure. In fact it was likely that home clubs rarely benefited from gate reciepts once match expenses were paid out of them, especially in smaller stadiums - although they may have made money from memberships and reserved seating (which has never been split). The AFL made the call in 2000, believing that it would encourage smaller clubs to play in larger stadiums.

At the same time, the AFL wanted to double the equalisation levy - this was rejected by the clubs although it was agreed they should adjust it for inflation (from $1.10 up to $1.50 per adult ticket), and an apparent "blockbuster levy" of $25,000 be maintained.

The Book International Sports Economic Comparison (Fort, Fizel pg 335) tells us in its notes that 50/50 gate sharing was abandoned in 2000 in favour of the home team keeping all match receipts after match expenses. There are rare exceptions to that rule and only with the consent of competing clubs (ie. Melbourne v Collingwood)

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

.......50/50 gate sharing was abandoned in 2000 in favour of the home team keeping all match receipts after match expenses.

Thank you very much Wookie.

Hopefully, the less educated out there will now take this in to account before they start tossing around flippant uninformed statements such as, "North didn't cash in on their success in the 90's"

 

[boncer34]

What year did the AFL hand gate takings back to the clubs?

Again so what?

Other clubs did it without needing that. Or are you happily conceding North needed a leg up even when they were successful?

 

[theflea]

Thank you very much Wookie.

Hopefully, the less educated out there will now take this in to account before they start tossing around flippant uninformed statements such as, "North didn't cash in on their success in the 90's"

that statement doesnt necessarily mean actual 'cash' as it could mean fan following and membership increases.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

that statement doesnt necessarily mean actual 'cash' as it could mean fan following and membership increases.

......which are issues primarily concerned with revenue.

 

[theflea]

......which are issues primarily concerned with revenue.

it can be but fan following ie numbers, is not.it could correlate to more members now.10 years of being at the top of the ladder should recruit more fans i would have thought.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

it can be but fan following ie numbers, is not.it could correlate to more members now.10 years of being at the top of the ladder should recruit more fans i would have thought.

North are a small club and all clubs are vulnerable to downturns in form and major rebuilding phases.

Collingwood would be the only recession proof club in Victoria.

 

[theflea]

North are a small club and all clubs are vulnerable to downturns in form and major rebuilding phases.

Collingwood would be the only recession proof club in Victoria.

this is not what im saying. i understand this point but all im saying is when the roos were up(90's) they should have recruited more of a following bc of this. since they are now on the up this should mean those dropoffs(the churn) should come back and your membership numbers and crowds should also be higher.

 

[Grogg]

So you've gone from 'players foot the bill out of their own pocket' to conceding that 'obviously the club is picking up some of the tab'. I doubt you really know TBH.

In any case, the exact amount doesn't really matter given it's clearly substantial. Are you really suggesting that finances are so bad that the basics required to field a competitive football team are in some way under threat? It's pretty obvious that they're not, given the amount of discretionary expenditure going on. You wouldn't be spending the $50k salary + probably at least that again on support services to recruit a basketballer if you couldn't afford gym equipment. Otherwise your admin should be strung up.

If you say so. It's pretty obvious wouldn't know your arse from your elbow when it comes to North Melbourne, Bob.

 

[Grogg]

Nothing infuriates more me than when I flick it onto Today Tonight and see my taxes being abused by dole bludgers. In my opinion, North are no better than the average bludger living on Dole Island.

We need to deregulate everything and see if they sink or swim

What sort of moron watches Today Tonight?