Moved Thread Will North move to Tassie?

[Beerfish]

You project as a sad person. All the best.

Yeah no worries. I'll see you in the sympathy for * thread.

 

[Choogler]

Well it's not like they didn't try.

I actually think that they could have forced the issue. I reckon Brays(hee)haw did the club no favours when he stepped in and "saved" them from going to QLD. North proudly proclaim they have made a profit for the past 10 seasons but, and NM supporters can disagree all they like with this, the facts are that it is only because of the prop up funding they get from the AFL. Going to the GC was a chance to expand their supporter base and become a more powerful and financially independent club. The same could be said for Melb, StK, and WB... all of whom rely on prop up funding to survive.

 

[Choogler]

Forced how?

Change the club funding model so that clubs have to stand on their own two feet without prop up funding from the AFL. Eg: In 2019, NM received $18.75 million, StK $22.3 million, WB $19.7 million, Melb $18.1
By comparison WCE received $12.3 (the lowest), Adelaide $13 , Richmond $14.9 (incl $1.5 GF winners prize money)
It is pretty obvious if you withdraw the additional funding that clubs would have to merge, relocate or go belly up.

 

[Choogler]

I'm not sure why you are attacking my club tbh.

Go have a look at the financial statements of all the AFL clubs.

10 years is a long time ago, financially we are totally different beast to then.

We aren't even in the bottom 2 of the Victorian clubs, let alone competition wide.

There have been initial reports we will potentially be reporting a profit this year also, one of the few clubs in the league to be able to do it because we don't rely on pokies and pubs.

I look forward to revisiting this thread in a few months when clubs financial statements are posted and we see the "real" unviability of some of the AFL clubs because of how they operate.

Ensure that you read it in conjunction with the club payments listed in the AFL Annual Report. Your 10 years of profits I suspect would be 10 years of losses without the prop up funding you receive from the AFL. Not your fault you just don't have the supporter base to stand on your own two feet and you are not the only Melb based club in that predicament. Here's a snapshot of the 2019 distribution of funds to the AFL clubs.

 

[telsor]

Change the club funding model so that clubs have to stand on their own two feet without prop up funding from the AFL. Eg: In 2019, NM received $18.75 million, StK $22.3 million, WB $19.7 million, Melb $18.1
By comparison WCE received $12.3 (the lowest), Adelaide $13 , Richmond $14.9 (incl $1.5 GF winners prize money)
It is pretty obvious if you withdraw the additional funding that clubs would have to merge, relocate or go belly up.

So you want to get rid of the NSW & QLD clubs first I take it?

The court cases that would come about from that (regarding fixturing, ground deals, etc) would also be 'interesting'.

 

[Laphroaig]

Change the club funding model so that clubs have to stand on their own two feet without prop up funding from the AFL. Eg: In 2019, NM received $18.75 million, StK $22.3 million, WB $19.7 million, Melb $18.1
By comparison WCE received $12.3 (the lowest), Adelaide $13 , Richmond $14.9 (incl $1.5 GF winners prize money)
It is pretty obvious if you withdraw the additional funding that clubs would have to merge, relocate or go belly up.

Good idea to change.

I would suggest that Clubs receive AFL funding on the basis of the share of total broadcast audience they create in a season.

Best reflection available of what a Club contributes to the earnings of the League as a whole.

By my calculations, the West Australian teams should get about $23.47 between them. And the SA sides can share a stale packet of cheese and onion chips.

 

[Choogler]

So you want to get rid of the NSW & QLD clubs first I take it?

The court cases that would come about from that (regarding fixturing, ground deals, etc) would also be 'interesting'.

My view has always been that if the AFL wanted to expand to GC & GWS then it should have been through relocations.
Victoria cannot support 10 teams and as much as the supporters of the non-viable teams want to argue, the proof of the pudding is in the afl distributions that clearly show that clubs that are financially incapable of standing on their own two feet are being kept alive by the AFL. The poor business decision by the AFL now means that there are at least 6 teams incapable of supporting themselves

 

[Laphroaig]

My view has always been that if the AFL wanted to expand to GC & GWS then it should have been through relocations.
Victoria cannot support 10 teams and as much as the supporters of the non-viable teams want to argue, the proof of the pudding is in the afl distributions that clearly show that clubs that are financially incapable of standing on their own two feet are being kept alive by the AFL. The poor business decision by the AFL now means that there are at least 6 teams incapable of supporting themselves

Imagine how different things would be if a handful of rich WA corporate criminals businessmen hadn't scattered bribes incentives all over the country in their unseemly rush to acquire WA football as their private plaything......

But even so. Your viewpoint is blinkered. WA takes far more out of the AFL than it puts in. Just remember that Victoria generated TV money is the only reason you have a seat at the big table at all.

 

[telsor]

My view has always been that if the AFL wanted to expand to GC & GWS then it should have been through relocations.
Victoria cannot support 10 teams and as much as the supporters of the non-viable teams want to argue, the proof of the pudding is in the afl distributions that clearly show that clubs that are financially incapable of standing on their own two feet are being kept alive by the AFL. The poor business decision by the AFL now means that there are at least 6 teams incapable of supporting themselves

Tell you what, let's try removing the AFL's taxes on Vic clubs and see how they fare first.

e.g. ~50% of the ground revenue passed on by the ground admin (AKA, the profits) at the MCG goes to the AFL, not the clubs.


Vic is 50-60% of the market (TV ratings, players produced, crowds, etc.). Having ~55% of the clubs is about right.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Are North moving to Tassie?

We had a quick show of hands, and the answer is no.

 

[HairyO]

Good idea to change.

I would suggest that Clubs receive AFL funding on the basis of the share of total broadcast audience they create in a season.

Best reflection available of what a Club contributes to the earnings of the League as a whole.

By my calculations, the West Australian teams should get about $23.47 between them. And the SA sides can share a stale packet of cheese and onion chips.

NSW teams would owe the AFL a few million.

Home games here sometimes get as few as 30k watching on the idiot box.

 

[Lockatronicus]

Are North moving to Tassie?

WTF is Tassie?

 

[Bleeeeeeeeep]

It is said that when a club is relocated or merged they lose approx have their supporter/membership base, so it is only logical, to have a “successful“ team in Tassie you would move one of the clubs with a bigger membership base like Rihcmunt. Instant 50k membership base for the Tassie Tigers.
You know it makes sense.

 

[Choogler]

Forced how?

Change the disequal AFL'S term)

Good idea to change.

I would suggest that Clubs receive AFL funding on the basis of the share of total broadcast audience they create in a season.

Best reflection available of what a Club contributes to the earnings of the League as a whole.

By my calculations, the West Australian teams should get about $23.47 between them. And the SA sides can share a stale packet of cheese and onion chips.

$23.47 what? Million?

 

[Laphroaig]

Change the disequal AFL'S term)

$23.47 what? Million?

Don't they teach basic numeracy in WA schools?

 

[telsor]

Change the disequal AFL'S term)

Agreed, I look forward to a quarter of the best seats at Optus being turned over to AFL members, and the AFL collecting millions directly from ground management (taken from the money the WA clubs earn).

 

[Choogler]

Imagine how different things would be if a handful of rich WA corporate criminals businessmen hadn't scattered bribes incentives all over the country in their unseemly rush to acquire WA football as their private plaything......

But even so. Your viewpoint is blinkered. WA takes far more out of the AFL than it puts in. Just remember that Victoria generated TV money is the only reason you have a seat at the big table at all.

Firstly, I'd love you to justify your statement and fill in the blanks about the "corporate criminals" and "bribes".
Until you can, your view remains just another blinkered and pro-Victorian view with no semblance of foundation.
If you really want the actual facts about the whole expansion thing, watch a show called "The Merge", available on KAYO or YouTube. Take note of what Ross Oakley, the boss of the VFL at that time, has to say about how and, more importantly, why the expansion occurred.
You will then see what a parlous state the VFL and half it's clubs, including Richmond and Collingwood, were in and how the expansion actually saved the VFL and it's clubs. Nothing has changed as far as propping up Melbourne based clubs like NM, Melb, StK & WB. Check their Annual Reports and see how many years in the last 10 they would have made profits without the "disequal" portion of the funding provided by the AFL.
AND... if you think any of those clubs provide more financially to the AFL than the WCE or even Freo then your thinking is really skewed.

 

[Choogler]

Don't they teach basic numeracy in WA schools?

Yes they do, that's how I was able to calculate that four Melbourne based clubs are perennial leeches sucking the financial lifeblood out of the AFL system with no chance of ever being self supporting.
By starting two new clubs rather than forcing, or seriously encouraging, relocation simply means there are now more clubs that the AFL are propping up.
I'm sure you think my view is a WA v Victoria thing but it's not. I want an AFL where all clubs are self sustaining, an AFL that is not dominated by a core of powerful clubs (including the Eagles), an AFL where every player sees an opportunity for premiership success during their career regardless of the club that drafts them, and an AFL where the powerful clubs don't constantly take the best players from (weaker) clubs because those players see no other way of experiencing premiership success. The current AFL model will never deliver that!

 

[Laphroaig]

Yes they do, that's how I was able to calculate that four Melbourne based clubs are perennial leeches sucking the financial lifeblood out of the AFL system with no chance of ever being self supporting.
By starting two new clubs rather than forcing, or seriously encouraging, relocation simply means there are now more clubs that the AFL are propping up.
I'm sure you think my view is a WA v Victoria thing but it's not. I want an AFL where all clubs are self sustaining, an AFL that is not dominated by a core of powerful clubs (including the Eagles), an AFL where every player sees an opportunity for premiership success during their career regardless of the club that drafts them, and an AFL where the powerful clubs don't constantly take the best players from (weaker) clubs because those players see no other way of experiencing premiership success. The current AFL model will never deliver that!

You might take into consideration who generates the TV ratings which are the principal source of revenue to the league. Hint. It is not the shitty little WA market.

It is the perpetually minor states, including WA, who happily trouser locally generated money and contribute SFA to the league as a whole. And then have the cheek to whine about not getting a bigger cut.

You might also consider that the reason we have the current set up is because the bankrupt WAFL was the driving force behind the forced mergers and relocations not happening before the national league kicked off.

 

[Choogler]

Tell you what, let's try removing the AFL's taxes on Vic clubs and see how they fare first.

e.g. ~50% of the ground revenue passed on by the ground admin (AKA, the profits) at the MCG goes to the AFL, not the clubs.


Vic is 50-60% of the market (TV ratings, players produced, crowds, etc.). Having ~55% of the clubs is about right.

But some of those clubs take more than they contribute and rely on "disequal" AFL funding to survive.

You might take into consideration who generates the TV ratings which are the principal source of revenue to the league. Hint. It is not the shitty little WA market.

It is the perpetually minor states, including WA, who happily trouser locally generated money and contribute SFA to the league as a whole. And then have the cheek to whine about not getting a bigger cut.

You might also consider that the reason we have the current set up is because the bankrupt WAFL was the driving force behind the forced mergers and relocations not happening before the national league kicked off.

I'm not asking for, or whining about a bigger cut. The team I support is fortunate to have a large membership and doesn't need any funding support. More often than not it receives less funding from the AFL than any other club but I'm not complaining about that.
I can see that under the existing AFL model there will always be the "haves" who dominate at the expense of the "have nots". Regardless of how much the "have nots" try, and regardless of how well they are managed, they simply don't have the supporter base to compete with the big clubs. It's not their fault just simply how it is!
The AFL has sacrificed Fitzroy in the past, so could have done it again. I think by establishing 2 new teams they have created a perpetual rod for their own back, a situation where they will continually be dishing out money to many clubs that can't support themselves and it is a fact that 4 of those clubs are in Melbourne.
As for your view on who generates the broadcast dollars, do you believe that if the interstate teams weren't in the competition, that the broadcast deal would be even half of what it is now?
Your comment on the bankrupt WAFL is off the mark. Did the bankrupt WAFL pay the licence fee demanded by the bankrupt VFL? No, it was originally paid by Indian Pacific Limited, a publicly owned company, from funds raised by public subscription. The licence has been fully owned by the WA Football Commission since 2000.
It was also reported in 2003 that the AFL had expressed an interest in acquiring the WCE and Freo licences. Why do you think they'd do that? Methinks they recognise cash cows when they see them, and an opportunity to siphon off the profits to support those that can't support themselves.
What does the AFL do to support footy in this state? Practically zero financially, whereas WCE (and Freo) pay their own stadium costs and 50 - 70% of WCE profit goes back to the WAFC.
I can't disagree that SOME of the interstate clubs enjoy a level of largesse from the AFL coffers but that most definitely does not extend to WCE, Freo, or Adelaide. They consistently receive less than most clubs in AFL funding. Do you seriously believe that they take more than they generate in income for the AFL. StK, WB, NM and Melb on the other hand.... ?

 

[Laphroaig]

Your comment on the bankrupt WAFL is off the mark. Did the bankrupt WAFL pay the licence fee demanded by the bankrupt VFL? No, it was originally paid by Indian Pacific Limited, a publicly owned company, from funds raised by public subscription. The licence has been fully owned by the WA Football Commission since 2000.

Nope.

I have no doubt both the licence fee and the accompanying bribes expenses did originate from the half dozen corporate criminals WA businessmen who owned a controlling interest in the "public subscription company" before Joe Public ever got a sniff.

However. The AFL sold a licence to the WAFL (everybody knows the WAFL didn't have any money, and yet somehow they purchased it) who then immediately (like within days) sold it off to Indian Pacific for what "they paid" plus a two million dollar bribe profit.

I also have no doubt that the six figure bribes WAFL distributions to each WAFL club came from the same source. (The WAFL Clubs had previously voted resoundingly against the licence application in the form in which it was ultimately made. By a vast co-incidence the Clubs changed their vote from No to Yes immediately after receiving their bribes WAFL Distribution).

I know this part of the narrative is largely skimmed over or completely ignored in the version West Australian children receive with their mother's milk. Nonetheless, thus is the inconvenient truth.

We may as well address the other part of the milky fairy tale while we are at it. Approaching a national competition there were two or three competing credible visions slugging it out in Melbourne football circles. NONE OF THEM included retention of all the Melbourne Clubs. The immediate payment of the licence fee was essentially just another version of the "WAFL Distribution". A thinly disguised vote buying exercise which secured immediate entry, rather than further delay (which would have achieved the very result you champion - shedding by bankruptcy, forced relocation or merger around 1/2 of the Melbourne clubs.)

 

[JOHNNY GASTEV]

North are an obvious target but nobody discusses StKilda. One flag in 125 years, small membership and an indifferent culture. They should’ve been thrown into the relocation mix 20 years ago.

 

[CarnTheScray]

North are an obvious target but nobody discusses StKilda. One flag in 125 years, small membership and an indifferent culture. They should’ve been thrown into the relocation mix 20 years ago.

No club should be in the discussion full stop.

 

[JOHNNY GASTEV]

No club should be in the discussion full stop.

Even is they’re financially unviable?

 

[CarnTheScray]

Even is they’re financially unviable?

So we should fold every club that doesn't make a profit every single year?