Why I disagree with Bill Sanders!

[The Boy From Brasil]

Okay, I should say from the outset that I like the adelaide Crows, think Neil Craig is a great coach, like their players and think the formation of the Adelaide Crows has been a major asset to the competition.

So, I am not having a go at their club, just responding to Bill Sanders comments below.

The highly respected Sanders said he believed clubs should be made to stand on their own two feet beyond 2009, and said he had expressed that view to AFL Commission chairman Mike Fitzpatrick and AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou.
"We would like to see a sunset clause, so it doesn't go on indefinitely," Sanders said. "We don't see this as an indefinite financial prop up, other than in extreme circumstances. There's an unfairness about it. We understand clubs need support, but it's a question of for how long?
"A lot of people think it, no one's saying it. I'd be surprised if Adelaide's view was not shared by the majority of clubs."

This is one of the bugbears of mine when people such as Bill Sanders and Jeff Kennett in high postions, come out with this kind of thing every so often.

It is almost like they are saying "Cut off the support to these losers, they don't deserve it and the competition is better off without them".

They either forget or don't understand that the distribution we receive as a club is not a handout but compensation due to the inequitable draw and inequity in stadium deals.

As a club we do not complain that Adelaide has such a fantastic stadium deal. We also do not complain that they have a guaranteed two showdowns every year, and home finals and so on. Personally, I am pleased for them and well done to them. But please leave us alone as a club. Adelaide has over 40,000 members and is one of the most financially prosperous clubs in the league. What do they care that we receive compensation due to inequities in the draw.

We never get an ANZAC game, or any of the other benefits that the major clubs receive. Our stadium deal is simply appalling. Again it was in AFL's and the competitions best interest that we move from Western Oval and commit to the ground rationalisation strategy.

We do all this with a smile on our face and never complain. So why is it so important to other wealthy clubs with good stadium deals and favoured draws to try and stop our compensation?

The AFL is so strong because of the all the different clubs in the competition. The North Melbourne's and the Bulldogs are every bit as important to the fabric of the competition as the Collingwoods and the Adelaides.

Start cutting into the smaller clubs and you start cutting into the competition. And no matter how millions in the bank clubs have or sponsors or supporters, without a healthy competition, clubs are nothing. Because a club is set up not to make profit to its shareholders, but to play football. I only hope that the Bill Sanders and Jeff Kennetts of this world, remember this now and again.

 

[tiggsy]

It's one of those interesting ones I guess. Football at the top level seems to be far more a business than the community based club of yesteryear. From the perspective of the Crows you only need to ask Ben Hart or Jason Torney who were unceromoniously dumped or Ben Hudson or Scott Welsh who couldn't get guaranteed length to their contracts. Personally, I am sad to see football become more business focussed and reckon it's tragic to see traditional clubs like Fitzroy go. It is easy for people in the comfortable position of the wealthier clubs like Adelaide or Collingwood to suggest that the less wealthy teams should be left to flounder. I think the different backgrounds of the teams adds to the culture and flavour of the AFL and would hope to see that preserved.

Surprising that Kennett would say anything though, given the position Hawthorn has been in at times. There again I never thought much of what he said made sense!

 

[Wally G]

Well may i commend the comment of TBFB? I'd love to read such an accurate representation of our position (and the other struggling clubs) in the paper. The more the real reasons for the balance fund existing being publicised, the less chance of having the support funding unceremoniously withdrawn. I emailed "the #1 lady in football' with a suggestion that she put the spotlight on Telstra Dome CEO and Dog hater, Ian Collins and the ridiculous and unsustainable deals clubs like ours have to stomach. Surprisingly, Caoline hasn't got back to me on the matter yet.

PS Well said tiggsy as well.

 

[Scray]

This is typical jealousy stuff coming from Adelaide just because dogs are blitzing the interstate teams and have their eyes set on September this year. Sour grapes in my book.

I also reckon the AFL should be giving every Victorian team 3 top draft picks for the next five years to make up for the unfair support the AFL has given to interstate clubs like Adelaide in the past ten years.

 

[Gooka]

You can't argue that the draw is equitable. No one can.

The draw has massive income ramifications.

Stadium deal or not, it's not a level playing field.

 

[The Boy From Brasil]

This is typical jealousy stuff coming from Adelaide just because dogs are blitzing the interstate teams and have their eyes set on September this year. Sour grapes in my book.

There is sour grapes not only from Adelaide but other clubs as well over our brand new state of the art training facilities.

Their argument is that why should we still get AFL assistance when we have such great new training facilities worth millions.

I would argue against them with the following points.

1)There is a massive difference between income and capital expenditure. The new training facilities arose because of capital expenditure in a deal devised by Campbell Rose whereby the council, the state and federal governments and the AFL all contributed to the funding of it, if they all did. Has nothing to do with income and income is the main problem for the bulldogs which is due in part to a poor draw and poor stadium deal.

2)The new training facilities are not just for the club. It is for the western suburbs as a whole with many wide and varied user groups. It is more of a community facility than a club asset.

 

[memberforever]

Okay, I should say from the outset that I like the adelaide Crows, think Neil Craig is a great coach, like their players and think the formation of the Adelaide Crows has been a major asset to the competition.

So, I am not having a go at their club, just responding to Bill Sanders comments below.



This is one of the bugbears of mine when people such as Bill Sanders and Jeff Kennett in high postions, come out with this kind of thing every so often.

It is almost like they are saying "Cut off the support to these losers, they don't deserve it and the competition is better off without them".

They either forget or don't understand that the distribution we receive as a club is not a handout but compensation due to the inequitable draw and inequity in stadium deals.

As a club we do not complain that Adelaide has such a fantastic stadium deal. We also do not complain that they have a guaranteed two showdowns every year, and home finals and so on. Personally, I am pleased for them and well done to them. But please leave us alone as a club. Adelaide has over 40,000 members and is one of the most financially prosperous clubs in the league. What do they care that we receive compensation due to inequities in the draw.

We never get an ANZAC game, or any of the other benefits that the major clubs receive. Our stadium deal is simply appalling. Again it was in AFL's and the competitions best interest that we move from Western Oval and commit to the ground rationalisation strategy.

We do all this with a smile on our face and never complain. So why is it so important to other wealthy clubs with good stadium deals and favoured draws to try and stop our compensation?

The AFL is so strong because of the all the different clubs in the competition. The North Melbourne's and the Bulldogs are every bit as important to the fabric of the competition as the Collingwoods and the Adelaides.

Start cutting into the smaller clubs and you start cutting into the competition. And no matter how millions in the bank clubs have or sponsors or supporters, without a healthy competition, clubs are nothing. Because a club is set up not to make profit to its shareholders, but to play football. I only hope that the Bill Sanders and Jeff Kennetts of this world, remember this now and again.

I totally agree with you. I am not only sick and tired of the Kennets and Sanders of the world, but also supporters of other clubs who don't know the reason for the ASD in the first place. The AFL make around $150 million surplus every year and we have these idiots whinging about an ASD for $6 million. We should demand from the AFL our share of the $150 million every year ie 1/16th.

The worst thing about the inequitable draw is that it is making the stronger clubs even stronger. The more these games are promoted (eg ANZAC day), the more exposure and therefore the more potential to grow the supporter base. Why do you think Collingwood and Essendon keep growing. The whole thing is like a catch 22 and we are coming from a long way back.

 

[memberforever]

There is sour grapes not only from Adelaide but other clubs as well over our brand new state of the art training facilities.

Their argument is that why should we still get AFL assistance when we have such great new training facilities worth millions.

I would argue against them with the following points.

1)There is a massive difference between income and capital expenditure. The new training facilities arose because of capital expenditure in a deal devised by Campbell Rose whereby the council, the state and federal governments and the AFL all contributed to the funding of it, if they all did. Has nothing to do with income and income is the main problem for the bulldogs which is due in part to a poor draw and poor stadium deal.

2)The new training facilities are not just for the club. It is for the western suburbs as a whole with many wide and varied user groups. It is more of a community facility than a club asset.

You know what they are sooooo jealous that a working class club in the Western Suburbs has been able to build the best facilities in the country.

 

[immortalmike]

You know what they are sooooo jealous that a working class club in the Western Suburbs has been able to build the best facilities in the country.

Yeah that gets to me too the West gets screwed over on everything from schools to public transport but the moment someone over here gets something thats owed to them, the snobs (like Kennett) get their knickers in a knot. Guess they need someone to look down their nose at. Its pathetic.

 

[the dog catcher]

Here is a comment from The Age website which started about Melbournes financial strife and ended up reading like this:

"As a Swan's supporter living in Perth, I think the AFL has to cut the subsidies to clubs losing money. Future assistance should only go to 2 Victorian teams so they can relocate to the Gold Coast and Perth. Another team in Perth would be viable within a few years, the Gold Coast would take a bit longer but a West Sydney team will take over ten years of serious subsidy.

Good luck to the Demons finding the money to build their stadium. "

Posted by: Michael on May 26, 2008 10:08 PM

This is the view of a very large slice of the footy public. And he even has the gaul to be a swans fan- aren't they the king of the hand out??

 

[Benno From Berwick]

South Australians should put Bill Sanders type of thinking to such things as GTS revenue from the Fed, the number of upper house position in the Fed government.....

i think Bill should look both ways if he is ever crossing the road! just in case I am around!!

 

[Tempo]

All of a sudden the money clubs are worried that we are getting on our feet .... we have never been perceived as a threat before The whitten redevelopment has the competition green with envy. That said capital expenditure has bugger all to do with operational running costs of the footbal club.

Fat Andy and Co just needs to sort out a the stadium deal to give us the return of Ess & Stk and we will look after ourselves.

When we went to Colonial stadium the break even was said to be a crowd of 16000 ...... well it has become double that.

 

[flamethrower]

I just cannot understand the attitude of narrow minded people who support the demise of AFL football by pushing for the reduction in foundation clubs and therefore losing hundreds of thousands of supporters.

 

[hujsh]

Did anyone hear him on SEN.

No surprise he backed down a bit but at the end of the interview they revealed that CamblelRose was on the line listening in.

They then interviewed Rose after the ad break

 

[robbo3005]

Did anyone hear him on SEN.

No surprise he backed down a bit but at the end of the interview they revealed that CamblelRose was on the line listening in.

They then interviewed Rose after the ad break

And.........

What was Campbells response?

 

[paul scholes]

I just cannot understand the attitude of narrow minded people who support the demise of AFL football by pushing for the reduction in foundation clubs and therefore losing hundreds of thousands of supporters.

James Brayshaw made a point on sen that the Brisbane Lions will make 7 million I repeat 7 million $ more than the Kangaroos with their stadium deal re. Gabba. Funny thing is North are averaging more fans at the TD!!
Couldn't agree more why the ____ would you want to disenfranchise thousands of Footy fans?Trust me they'll just turn to other sports Mr Sarnders

 

[hujsh]

When we play at the G like we did today, do we get a different deal?

Because if not we basically got $1 per person.

 

[The Boy From Brasil]

From todays herald sun. Demetriou is talking about the debate over clubs being recompensated for poor stadium deals.

This is what I don't understand

Demetriou provided his own example of the disparity.
"The Brisbane Lions average 28,000-30,000 at the Gabba and will probably nett $5 million more than the Western Bulldogs (Telstra Dome), who are probably going to average 35,000 this year," he said.

"It's not the fault of the stadia. Don't blame the stadia; we are where we are."

If it is not the fault of the stadia, who is it the fault of?