Struggling clubs hit jackpot

[stefoid]

Re: Struggling clubs hit jackpot

We are spending $500K a year interest on a $10mil loan, yet we are breaking even each year.

Get rid of half the debt with $5mil, save $250K in interest a year and we are a slightly profitable club.

From that situation, we can improve year on year, instead of going backwards. baby steps...

[Studentlib]

Re: Struggling clubs hit jackpot

The cynic in me surfaces whenever the AFL with hand on heart, talk about ensuring the future of struggling clubs. To my mind this poisoned chalice is about ensuring 9 games of footy for tv rights. Nothing more. If it was truly a socialist paradigm (as richer clubs bang on about) there is a range of options available to it, some alluded to in previous replies, that would materially improve future prospects for smaller clubs. Better protection from poaching, better drafting provisions, fairer scheduling, more free to air coverage etc. These things are well known. Bottom line is: smaller clubs = poorer clubs = unsuccessful clubs. All this will do is keep clubs breathing but never truly competitive , ala English soccer.

To quote Demetriou "As long as they operate within their means it shouldn't be an issue. But they do know that if there is any material shift to what has been signed on as the plan there will be consequences."
What really depresses me is that the AFL are arrogant enough to boldly, publicly state that basically these clubs aren now controlled by it. Even decisions to sack staff are to be signed off by it before actioning.
And what is in this plan that the club has signed on for to get the money?

[BulldogBelle]

Re: Struggling clubs hit jackpot

"As long as they operate within their means it shouldn't be an issue"

The funny thing is, if we want to be competitive, we have to stay with +/- 30% of the spending level of the larger clubs - given that we are reliant on AFL welfare, and that we are told to spend within our means, this is unlikely to happen.

Eg clubs that have not won a premiership in the last say 25 years, should be granted draft concessions (eg limit the number of games a father had to have played for a father/son eligibility down to 25 or 50), better scheduling rules, limits on the number of players we could loose to free agency etc

[Remi Moses]

Re: Struggling clubs hit jackpot

Kennett was having a bitch about it on radio today including is in a group of clubs who haven't 'worked hard' to improve their lot.........

So what's he implying that North and The Dogs haven't worked hard to "Improve their lot". The only question is with so many facets of the sport so important these days, do we want a teams competing with an arm tied behind their back? Perfect example is reading that the Pies have 6 full time recruiting staff and we have two. Basically fans in our code want to be able to win the bloody thing, not a widening gap !

[Studentlib]

Re: Struggling clubs hit jackpot

Exactly. We will go back to the bad old days of being a nursery for developing players only to be ripped off by rich clubs. Free agency, media control over scheduling etc means well established and supported clubs thrive at the expense of lesser clubs. Collingwood's stated ambition to be the Man U of the AFL emphasises this beggar thy neighbour attitude. I can't imagine young people joining up as doggies supporters if they 1) are rarely on primetime free to air tv; 2)don't win games; 4) don't get media coverage regularly.
Surely the AFL don't think that having 4 successful clubs and 14 also rans is a sustainable model long term. So I come back to the AFL cynically drip feeding smaller Melbourne clubs, providing over the top support for new interstate clubs, with a longer term vision of 6 or so big melbourne clubs and 8 strong interstate clubs. Once we have served our purpose viz a viz tv rights over next 5 years, Whither the Bulldogs?

[LostDoggy]

Re: Struggling clubs hit jackpot

Exactly. We will go back to the bad old days of being a nursery for developing players only to be ripped off by rich clubs. Free agency, media control over scheduling etc means well established and supported clubs thrive at the expense of lesser clubs. Collingwood's stated ambition to be the Man U of the AFL emphasises this beggar thy neighbour attitude. I can't imagine young people joining up as doggies supporters if they 1) are rarely on primetime free to air tv; 2)don't win games; 4) don't get media coverage regularly.
Surely the AFL don't think that having 4 successful clubs and 14 also rans is a sustainable model long term. So I come back to the AFL cynically drip feeding smaller Melbourne clubs, providing over the top support for new interstate clubs, with a longer term vision of 6 or so big melbourne clubs and 8 strong interstate clubs. Once we have served our purpose viz a viz tv rights over next 5 years, Whither the Bulldogs?

The AFL learnt from both Sydney and Fitzroy that simply moving a Melbourne team interstate is not necessarily the answer to national expansion. I think Footscray changing our name to Western and claiming the west of Melbourne as our homeland, rather than just Footscray (in itself a shrinking suburb), was a bright move that should hopefully serve to secure our place in Melbourne.

What the less-wealthy clubs need is time, not just money. We need time and protection to build a list, build a tilt at the flag and then enjoy the success that comes with that. At the moment, any time some young kid wants to be a Dogs supporter s/he has many telling her/him, “Nah, don't go for the Dogs, they haven't won a thing in 60 years.” It's just as damaging as having lesser TV coverage and we're forever trapped in the vicious circle.

Kennett was totally wrong — give the clubs that time and money and they will turn their fortunes around. If the Dogs can get that premiership monkey off our back we'll enjoy the same success Geelong are having.