Quiet on the equalisation debate?

[Remi Moses]

Re: Quiet on the equalisation debate?

Geelong make 700 K for 15 thousand
We write a cheque for getting 20 thousand.
Absolute farce! Anzac Day is an event game attended also by non supporters of the competing teams. They make 700 each for the privelage!
The Gate receipts have to be shared in light of this souped up joke called a fixture.

[WBFC4FFC]

Re: Quiet on the equalisation debate?

This is the whole problem with the AFL.

They manipulate the draw in order to maximise revenue over fairness. 18 teams with 22 games and no divisions, in order to provide them with maximum leverage to structure the games they want when they want! (3 divisions of 6, where you play each other once and the other teams once each year (rotating home and away very second year is a fairer system with 22 rounds. Top 2 play finals and 2 widcards if you want).

In doing so, the AFL fails to then distribute the proceeds equally over the competition. Hence the have and have nots.

Since the Bullies left Optus Oval, they have never made a profit without AFL assistance, yet in that time the Membership has more than doubled and crowds have nearly tripled (depending on the draw). That is simply not fair and leaves the Bullies (and at least half the comp) reliant on the AFL for their existence in an unfair sporting landscape.

Didn't the Clubs back in the day share the gate, no matter whose home game it was? It would be a start to go back to that system.

Free Agency is an issue when you can pay excesses above the Salary Cap (which not every team can do).

I could go on but I think I have made my point. This problem will rear its ugly head in 20 years, when it will be like European soccer, where you will have 3-5 dominant clubs that the majority of the population will follow, with the rest making up the numbers. When there are no further comps to play (ie: Champs League) it will be the slow demise of the game and comp without a restructure.

In saying all this, a tax on rich clubs will not help. The AFL must get the excess revenue before it gets into the dominant clubs hands.

[The Adelaide Connection]

Re: Quiet on the equalisation debate?

Salt in the wounds- Collingwood are set to announce a bumper multi-million dollar deal with the MCG.

[Ghost Dog]

Re: Quiet on the equalisation debate?

One Carlton mate reckons it would be a ratings disaster if we ever became a dynasty.

I think he underestimates the latent support for our club across the AFL community.

[GVGjr]

Re: Quiet on the equalisation debate?

If clubs were to retain their membership income, but then split the gate receipts 50/50, would that even things up a bit?

[jeemak]

Re: Quiet on the equalisation debate?

Our deal at Etihad is directly related to the purchase of Etihad by the AFL.

Do you think Collingwood would agree to forgo any benefit that flows from AFL ownership in 2025?

There is no equitable manner of covering the stadium deals and the uneven fixturing without shared gate revenue from every game being split evenly by every club.

The fixture provides benefits to the big clubs over and above gate receipts with the prime time exposure assisting them to sell more memberships and attract more sponsorship.

I don't expect it to happen but shared revenue from the gates is the only equitable option.

Of course not. And the brutal reality we face as a club is we'll pay for the stadium alongside the other tenants, and receive an unfair level of compensation on the basis that we couldn't have done that without the support of the opposition clubs we played against there. Therein lies the hypocrisy of the current distribution setup.

A purely equal draw would never be met with equal distribution of gate receipts. Our club is in a position where it must choose between equality associated with an equal draw, or benefiting from sharing the gate receipts from a fixture that is geared towards maximising revenues.

If we choose the latter we forego all the benefits of equal exposure, but for the short term and medium term we'd be better off doing so rather than building revenue and having to capitalise on the brand exposure we'd benefit from.

We're in a crap situation, either way, though each scenario is better than the current one.

[Eastdog]

Re: Quiet on the equalisation debate?

Do you agree jeemak that clubs that have handled there finances well and have more money should not be expected to bailout clubs who haven't handled their finances well. Really every club should stand of there own two feet. How did we end up with the huge debt we have and should we follow the other clubs who have had debt in clearing it of the books. How can we generate revenue and can we get some deal done with Etihad for the betterment of our club.

[westdog54]

Re: Quiet on the equalisation debate?

Do you agree jeemak that clubs that have handled there finances well and have more money should not be expected to bailout clubs who haven't handled their finances well. Really every club should stand of there own two feet. How did we end up with the huge debt we have and should we follow the other clubs who have had debt in clearing it of the books. How can we generate revenue and can we get some deal done with Etihad for the betterment of our club.

First things first, there is nothing to suggest that we've 'handled our finances poorly'.

Secondly we are trying to eliminate our debt but when your income from gate receipts is so limited its challenging.

Thirdly, its not in Etihad's interest to 'do a deal' with us as it won't make them any money.

In the environment that the AFL has created, to say that clubs should be able to stand on their own two feet is simplistic in the extreme.

[Guido]

Re: Quiet on the equalisation debate?

Has there ever been a truly successful organisation with such a "woe is me" attitude?

Seems everything is somehow everyone else's fault. Is the club's management responsible for ANYTHING? The "big bad AFL and big bad AFL clubs and the big bad stadiums are the only reason we're not strong" ... can ANY aspect of the position the club finds itself in be attributed to, y'know, the people directly responsible for running it?

When we were a top 4 team, we received our spread of high exposure games - 2/3/4 Friday night games is MORE than our fair share - and received our fair share of games against the bigger Melbourne clubs. But what did we do with a popular, top 4 team, getting high exposure, record memberships and millions in AFL assistance during those years? Somehow, somehow, we came out of that successful period a few more million in debt than what we went in with. Melbourne, over the same time frame, with less AFL assistance, less members, less exposure, less attendances, a rubbish bottom 4 team deliberately trying to lose, wiped $5million off their debt.

Nah, we were the one's with the financial geniuses at the helm.

The list management decisions that have cost premierships, and in turn thousands of new members and millions in additional revenues - it's the fault of these nasty clubs who always want our good players, not idiots put in place by club's management. But if it wasn't for these other clubs wanting a competitive advantage, we'd be fine! The draft picks, spots on the list and millions in salary cap space on those recycled players? Oh, we were just spooked into those mistakes .... y'know, literally fifty times... it won't happen again, we've put systems in place to avoid these screw ups, don't you worry ... and these cast offs we've picked up in 2012 are gonna different, just you wait and see!

The stadium deals ... figureheads yelling from the rooftops that we "can't wait to move down Footscray Rd to Doglands!!!" before even beginning contract negotiations with Colonial Stadium, that was the AFL's fault.

The strategic decisions in looking at moving games and investing thousands of dollars and man hours into Sydney, Darwin and South East Queensland when other clubs have signed contracts worth tens of millions a 40 minute flight away in Tassie. Hawthorn apparently "sold their soul", according to our president at the time - those deals have propelled them to having $30mil in the bank, 50,000+ members (almost 10,000 of them from Tassie), and pretty much guaranteed their future in Victoria for eternity - but nah, we'll be the self righteous ones dishing out advice on how to best manage a club.

And of course, everything's the fixture's fault. If the fixture was 100% fair and our stadium deal ensured we got played every team the same number of times over a three year period and received fair compensation (full match takings minus full expenses) equally from games against Collingwood/Essendon/Richmond as well as against GC/ GWS/ Freo/ Port, we'd be much better off than the discrationary $2.5mil the club receives from the AFL.

At the end of the day, IMO we've had a good opportunity to change the club's destiny but it hasn't happened. Other's may disagree, but when on the cusp of merger, I don't think Hawthorn (under Ian Dicker) in 1996 had an attitude on waiting on the AFL to improve exposure/fixturing/match returns, they got themselves out of it through quality management. St Kilda under Plympton, didn't say "How can we be more reliant on the AFL to get ourselves out of this massive hole". Under Frank Costa, Geelong in 1999 didn't say "the AFL's decisions will dictate how successful we can be. We simply can't get out of this $10mil debt unless the AFL change everything to suit our clearly flawed business model".

So which direction does the club take? Because if it maintains this "woe is us" attitude from the top down, it will not succeed, can absolutely guarantee it. But I have to say that EVERYTHING I've seen from Gordon is very much along the lines of the attitudes displayed by the three presidents/clubs above, and it's the attitude I want displayed by the president of my club. An absolute breath of fresh air and gives me a hell of a lot more confidence in the club's management and future than I've had in years.

[Mofra]

Re: Quiet on the equalisation debate?

I agree with alot of what you said Guido - we have to find a way to control the controllables and stop whining about the externalities.

We have had some wins in recent history - the WO development is huge, eclipsing most other clubs - but we've had our fair share of cock-ups too, as have many other clubs (Bulldog Hilton any closer yet?).

[Bornadog]

Re: Quiet on the equalisation debate?

GUIDO, the trouble is the AFL have created the monster that is Collingwood, Essendon, etc by allowing more exposure on free to air TV, blockbuster games, Friday nights, stadium delas etc.

Yes agree that we have not managed our club well and we have had some bad luck with drafting (yes luck as its a lottery out there with these young kids) and some bad list management. The AFL took over the negotiations for Eithad and stuffed it up. Should we have allowed that at the time.- NO, but I believe our hands were tied. I don't think anyone is saying we are faultless and lets blame everything on the AFL. However, the AFL negotiated the TV rights and we were just making up the numbers and the TV networks dictate who they want during prime time etc. This is where the AFL should have though long term, but all they care about is now. so we have the situation where these clubs are just continually growing and we are going backwards.

[Maddog37]

Re: Quiet on the equalisation debate?

I for one really enjoyed watching the Collingwood membership launch on Fox Footy during our NAB Cup game. I also enjoyed listening to Daisy Thomas crap on about all things Collingwood during the game, hell we even got to see his holiday snaps. Actually who was that other team playing again? The full strength Bulldogs with Brad Boyd as captain.


No doubt the over the top propaganda slanted towards Collingwood was all the fault of the Bulldogs hierarchy. The constant references to the Big Four clubs which by extension means all the other clubs are little is also the Bulldogs hierachys fault.

The lure of the dollar and bloody minded pursuit of higher crowds by the AFL is solely to blame for the transformation of a level playing field, draw based competition into an inequitable, self serving media machine. Hang on, I am sure the Bulldogs hierachy can be blamed for that one as well if we think hard enough.

Open your eyes to what is happening right now Guido because before you know it we will not really have an AFL competition as such. It will be just like the EPL with Man U, Chelsea etc and then the rest fighting for the scraps.

Actually, it is too late,we are already there. Bring on the divisions with relegation and promotion and be done with it.

[Guido]

Re: Quiet on the equalisation debate?

No doubt the over the top propaganda slanted towards Collingwood was all the fault of the Bulldogs hierarchy. The constant references to the Big Four clubs which by extension means all the other clubs are little is also the Bulldogs hierachys fault.

In your own sarcastic way, you're making the exact point I'm trying to get across.

Bulldogs management can't control what Foxtel, Channel 7, the AFL or Collingwood do. Expecting these third parties to somehow have our back and do what's best for us instead of themselves is rank stupidity. We do know for a fact that businesses will all act in their own self interest, do you expect them to change that philosophy? To go against human nature, for the sake of the poor clubs? Good luck with that.

I've only been critical of decisions directly under the club's control which IMO could/should have made major contributions to it's underlying viability. I think management have made poor choices, and I also think that no-one within the club ever accepts responsibility for these screw ups - like on these forums, it always seems to be someone else's fault. If you disagree, well fine, but I'm only going on the evidence in front of me.

The lure of the dollar and bloody minded pursuit of higher crowds by the AFL is solely to blame for the transformation of a level playing field, draw based competition into an inequitable, self serving media machine.

"Good old days" syndrome.

Not old enough to have lived through it, but history tells me that the dogs had next to no chance being a thriving club in last 20 years of the pre-salary cap era. Since it and draft equalisation came into the mix, despite financial limitations, we've made the finals more than the average team has, which is exactly as it should be. We've had chances for premierships which IMO were sabotaged by our own hand (short sighted list management decisions), not anyone else's balance sheet or money in invested in their footy departments (except maybe for Collingwood in 2010, but fact is that they had also managed their list better than we had).

And the fact is that with one or two majorly ballsy, forward thinking decisions (maybe appointing Brian Cook, maybe jumping on Tasmania rather than foray's into Sydney/Darwin, a debt demolition campaign in 1998 rather than 2008, which would have saved the club over $5mill in interest payments, a good footy manager who wasn't dimwitted) it's all "with hindsight" type stuff, but we most definitely had the means to be debt free and ultra successful with a premiership or two and demanding the premier slots for exposure.

The boat has sailed, but there is no reason, not the AFL, not the fixture, not Collingwood and Essendon hogging the spotlight, that dictates that we cannot reach that point in 10/20/30 years. There's weaknesses and shortcomings, but only way to beat these limitations is to outsmart richer clubs on every level, not through whinging and moaning about their existing strengths. And in the long term, IMO it's pivotal to be less/non reliant on discretionary AFL funding, not more as some people are suggesting.

Open your eyes to what is happening right now Guido because before you know it we will not really have an AFL competition as such. It will be just like the EPL with Man U, Chelsea etc and then the rest fighting for the scraps.

Actually, it is too late,we are already there. Bring on the divisions with relegation and promotion and be done with it.

Can I put in </defeatist bullshit> tags to end that little puppy?

My eyes are wide open. We mixed with all of the big boys at the top of our cycle. West Coast has tens on millions to spend, they've finished bottom 4 a number of times in the last decade.

Ten years ago the "interstate clubs were going to take over and it was the end for Victorian clubs." Enter Hawthorn, Geelong, Collingwood.

It is cyclical, it just happens that a few of the clubs at the bottom of the cycle at the moment are the poorer clubs. The draft will do it's job, as it has in countless upon countless of examples.

This club has had the tools available to it to gets itself out of debt, to mix it on the field, to make itself a powerhouse. A catchment with 500,000 people and growing, an insanely loyal supporter base, a lot of good people fighting for the cause, but it has to look in the mirror and acknowledge past (and guard against future) dumb off field decisions - both at board and footy department level.

It's going to contribute infinitely more to the club surviving in the long term than a micro-shift (which is the best we can realistically hope for) in equalisation policies.

[westdog54]

Re: Quiet on the equalisation debate?

Guido, you're clarly passionate about the club and you seem adamant that our management have got a lot wrong over the last few years.

Two questions:

Do you attend the AGM?

If so, what questions have you asked of the board?

[Remi Moses]

Re: Quiet on the equalisation debate?

Even Collingwood have made poor investments .
The Beach Hotel Anyone?
What irks me is that we were gaining big crowds at Etihad in the 08-10 period and made no money.
Now that should not be happening.