AFL interests come before our Club....

Betting firms want slice of AFL pieDan Silkstone | November 6, 2008 (The Age)

THE AFL will rejig exclusive deals with two gambling companies that are threatening to block new sponsorship money entering the sport.

But despite a host of likely changes aimed at funnelling more gambling money into football, a ban on bookmaking companies sponsoring clubs is set to continue, putting the league's interests on a possible collision course with its poorest clubs.

As the Western Bulldogs, Richmond and Melbourne struggle to attract major sponsors in a difficult economic climate, a flood of new gambling money is rushing into sports sponsorship.

Corporate bookmakers — mostly Darwin-based — had been prevented from advertising in Victoria and NSW or sponsoring sporting teams. But the removal of those obstacles by the two state governments has started a scramble for sponsorship properties across Australian sport.

Already, agencies have signed as naming rights sponsor for the A-League's Newcastle Jets and as major sponsor of the Australian Masters golf tournament. But while many betting companies say they are interested in backing AFL clubs, they have been prevented by the league's exclusivity deals with Betfair and Tabcorp.

The five-year "partnership" deals were signed in 2005 as part of an agreement expected to net the league a share of gambling revenue valued at up to $10 million. They also included a requirement that the two companies provide client lists to the league to ensure that players are not betting on football.

Several bookmaking firms — including Sportsbet and Centrebet — have held talks with the Western Bulldogs hoping to secure an agreement to sponsor the club.

Centrebet has received an official proposal from the Bulldogs, outlining the level of contribution that is required. Richmond confirmed yesterday it had also held talks with bookmaking agencies about sponsorship.

But neither Centrebet nor Sportsbet are currently permitted to sponsor a club, under the AFL's exclusive deals with Betfair and Tabcorp.
Bulldogs chief executive Campbell Rose recently called for the AFL to review its position, saying it would be extremely disappointing if the league's commercial arrangements stopped his club from securing an economic lifeline.
After meeting Sportsbet officials last week and fielding several more requests from within the industry, the league has rushed through a review of its rules.

But the new rules will not relax the ban on sponsoring teams, as the league is keen to protect its existing partners.

Instead, a list of "AFL approved" bookmakers will be drawn up. Agencies are likely to pay a licence or registration fee to be on the list and will then be required to share records to ensure that players and officials are not betting on football.

AFL-approved bookmakers would be permitted to enter limited deals with clubs, including signage at games and taking out corporate hospitality packages. But the agencies would not be allowed to sponsor "intellectual property" such as jumpers, shorts or team names.

Sportsbet's Matt Tripp said yesterday that the limited changes were "a step in the right direction", but added his company had $1 million to spend on sponsoring one or more teams if the league changed its mind.

I just can't get my head around this at all.....Essendon is sponsered by 3 not telstra...Geelong is sponsered by Ford not Toyota....there must be more to this?:confused:

The more is we aren't Geelong or Essendon. They can do what they want.
We aren't suppose to survive.

Add the fact that AFL want to make as much money as possible not to keep the comp healthy.

If it was one of the powerhouse clubs or interstate clubs it would not be an issue.
They would bend.
But this is what makes us so great.
Remember Fitzroy tried to take us over and, well Fitzroy who ?
The AFL tried to merge or relocate us and we are still going stronger than most Vic teams.
At the end of the day we will find a sponsor and we will still defy the odds.
And when we win a flag it will be the greatest day in AFL history !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KT31

If it was one of the powerhouse clubs or interstate clubs it would not be an issue.
They would bend.
But this is what makes us so great.
Remember Fitzroy tried to take us over and, well Fitzroy who ?
The AFL tried to merge or relocate us and we are still going stronger than most Vic teams.
At the end of the day we will find a sponsor and we will still defy the odds.
And when we win a flag it will be the greatest day in AFL history !

---

On field?

Seriously can we stop this rubbish talk. This is from BF and sums it up perfectly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guido

Can we get this straight - the AFL itself has no issue with these betting agencies getting on board for club sponsorship. If the agreements with Tabcorp and Betfair allowed it, the AFL would welcome clubs like ours getting much needed sponsorship from Centrebet/Sportsbet.

The betting agencies that have existing deals with the AFL and wanting to protect their brand are the problem. If the contract says no rival betting agencies to be involved in any way with the AFL and the clubs, then there's not much we can do.

Toyota came on board when clubs already had major sponsorships with rival car manufacturers. Their major sponsorship contract with the AFL had to allow those types of sponsorships to continue, otherwise they wouldn't have been able to secure the AFL naming rights.

---

Thanks for that Topdog, seems to make a bit of sense now.

Sorry it doesn't make sense.
Whats a clubs sponsorship got with AFL sponsorship?
How can they dictate what where a separate entity gets its money from?
Pre existing deals or not, it reeks of double standards.

I call it smart thinking by betfair and tabcorp to have that put in the agreement, AFL obviously didnt see what was coming in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ErnieSigley

Sorry it doesn't make sense.
Whats a clubs sponsorship got with AFL sponsorship?
How can they dictate what where a separate entity gets its money from?Pre existing deals or not, it reeks of double standards.

---

Here lies the problem, once you are part of the AFL as a team you must abide by their rules and contracts, If a contract is written by the AFL which obvuiously this one was, they have made a major stuff up.
I think the AFL will be spewing on this one as much as the clubs, because witout major sponsors the AFL has to fund more to clubs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ledge

I call it smart thinking by betfair and tabcorp to have that put in the agreement, AFL obviously didnt see what was coming in the future.

---

Smart thinking? More like devious thinking.
How do you accept those conditions in the agreements knowing that other sponsorships where there are conflicts don't have a restriction?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ledge

Here lies the problem, once you are part of the AFL as a team you must abide by their rules and contracts, If a contract is written by the AFL which obvuiously this one was, they have made a major stuff up.
I think the AFL will be spewing on this one as much as the clubs, because witout major sponsors the AFL has to fund more to clubs.

---

Rules that apply for some and not others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ErnieSigley

Smart thinking? More like devious thinking.
How do you accept those conditions in the agreements knowing that other sponsorships where there are conflicts don't have a restriction?

---

I am talking smart thinking by tabcorp to put it in, dumb by the AFL though to let it get through.

Does this mean that every mickey mouse contract signed by the AFL has to be vetted with a fine toothcomb in the future by every club and stakeholder, just on the off-chance that there may be a clause in there that interferes with the viability of independent commercial entities (that clubs are)?

If the Dogs are blocked from reaching a deal with an indendent sponsor because of a clause in an unrelated AFL contract, the AFL should then reach into its coffers and compensate the Dogs for the commensurate lost income. Otherwise, the Dogs should take the AFL to court for restriction of trade and get the bloody clause thrown out.

This is bloody ridiculous. Hands are tied my @R$E.