Quiet on the equalisation debate?

[bulldogtragic]

Re: Quiet on the equalisation debate?

I repeat my often stated position.

The first and easy step is for the AFL to take ALL gate receipts and cover all stadium costs.

While an equal distribution from there would be a start, the AFL has the option of then distributing on a needs basis.

It does not require the AFL to tax richer clubs.

The proposals are those of a bureaucrat and create complexity where it isn't required.

True. It makes you wonder why this path is preferred to others. The conspiracy theorist part of me thinks if it gets too hard and too complex then everyone can say it's too hard and thus put it on the never-never. But I'll bang on again, bigger clubs don't care about us. They need a variety of teams to play, and want TV exposure and the cash it generates. I see this going one way, and that is enough support to keep clubs like ours viable to have a variety of oppositions across the season, but not enough that teams near on their knees will be a serious competition to their position in the industry. And whatever morsels they throw our way, they will demand our greatfullness for teams ability to merely exist.

[lemmon]

Re: Quiet on the equalisation debate?

I repeat my often stated position.

The first and easy step is for the AFL to take ALL gate receipts and cover all stadium costs.

While an equal distribution from there would be a start, the AFL has the option of then distributing on a needs basis.

It does not require the AFL to tax richer clubs.

The proposals are those of a bureaucrat and create complexity where it isn't required.

Is that the NFL system?

[Bulldog Joe]

Re: Quiet on the equalisation debate?

Is that the NFL system?

No.

The NFL system is (I think)70% of all revenue is split equally. That includes membership, sponsorship and gates.

[Remi Moses]

Re: Quiet on the equalisation debate?

True. It makes you wonder why this path is preferred to others. The conspiracy theorist part of me thinks if it gets too hard and too complex then everyone can say it's too hard and thus put it on the never-never. But I'll bang on again, bigger clubs don't care about us. They need a variety of teams to play, and want TV exposure and the cash it generates. I see this going one way, and that is enough support to keep clubs like ours viable to have a variety of oppositions across the season, but not enough that teams near on their knees will be a serious competition to their position in the industry. And whatever morsels they throw our way, they will demand our greatfullness for teams ability to merely exist.

McGuire gives lip service about equalisation at every corner.
I like BJ's proposal but you can see the likes of Eddie and Newbloke at Hawthorn complaining about creating the most revenue.

[bulldogtragic]

Re: Quiet on the equalisation debate?

McGuire gives lip service about equalisation at every corner.
I like BJ's proposal but you can see the likes of Eddie and Newbloke at Hawthorn complaining about creating the most revenue.

I'm happy to publicly apologise (on WOOF) to those you just mentioned if they prove me wrong. But there won't be a genuine equalisation. They may funnel clubs like ours some cash, but that doesn't make up for the fact they will give the Good Friday games to others, an over representation of Sunday avo games and a general shabby fixture. Until we get access to avenues to generate more exposure, we won't get the sponsorship dollars to really pump the club up and we also won't attract and retain the membership base. I think of it like this, if we were relocated to Udnadata, would the big clubs really care? They need the requisite number of teams for a large fixture and enough TV games to spread around to maximise income. I don't for a second think anyone really cares about our club other than what they can get from us. This exercise feels like Tessio telling us he's brokered a peace meeting with Barzini and that everything will be ok. Believe it at your own risk.

I hate that goddamn Barzini.

[Bornadog]

Re: Quiet on the equalisation debate?

The AFL has created this situation because they never ever think about the long term good of the game. By giving Collingwood (and other so called big clubs), the best TV coverage, Fridays night football, the blockbusters including ANZAC day, the best stadium deals and all the publicity over the past 15 years (even further back), they have now created a monster to the detriment of the rest of the competition. Collingwood now have over 60,000 members, all created by the above. One can say they have always had a large supporter base, but the AFL has more than boosted it, they have given them the biggest leg up of all time in an uneven competition.

Imagine all those kids sitting in front of the telly, on their day off (ANZAC DAY), and the stadium is full of people, their little eyes open up and stare at Collingwood and Essendon on the big stage. Who do you think they are going to follow in the future. I am of the firm belief, the AFL has played a huge part in making these clubs bigger than they would have been without all the interference. At least other clubs could have had a share of the action and the pie could have been shared more.

When is the last time Collingwood played at Geelong, or Launceston, or Darwin, or Canberra? The whole think stinks and the outcome of the AFL giving everything to the bigger clubs is more members, more dollars, more spend on the football department and Eddie has the cheek to whinge and squeal when he has got everything given to him on a platter.

[Remi Moses]

Re: Quiet on the equalisation debate?

The AFL has created this situation because they never ever think about the long term good of the game. By giving Collingwood (and other so called big clubs), the best TV coverage, Fridays night football, the blockbusters including ANZAC day, the best stadium deals and all the publicity over the past 15 years (even further back), they have now created a monster to the detriment of the rest of the competition. Collingwood now have over 60,000 members, all created by the above. One can say they have always had a large supporter base, but the AFL has more than boosted it, they have given them the biggest leg up of all time in an uneven competition.

Imagine all those kids sitting in front of the telly, on their day off (ANZAC DAY), and the stadium is full of people, their little eyes open up and stare at Collingwood and Essendon on the big stage. Who do you think they are going to follow in the future. I am of the firm belief, the AFL has played a huge part in making these clubs bigger than they would have been without all the interference. At least other clubs could have had a share of the action and the pie could have been shared more.

When is the last time Collingwood played at Geelong, or Launceston, or Darwin, or Canberra? The whole think stinks and the outcome of the AFL giving everything to the bigger clubs is more members, more dollars, more spend on the football department and Eddie has the cheek to whinge and squeal when he has got everything given to him on a platter.

The irony is you never hear Eddie raising these points.

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

Re: Quiet on the equalisation debate?

My concerns about 'equalisation' still stand.


From The Age today:


AFL, power clubs ready for showdown over equalisation

Collingwood president Eddie McGuire is leading the charge against a tax on club revenues.

A showdown is looming on Thursday with the AFL and its most powerful clubs at loggerheads as Andrew Demetriou and his team strive to push through a series of new Robin Hood-style taxes in a bid to reshape the competition.

Collingwood president Eddie McGuire, who last week angrily refused to sign off on a number of new equalisation principles, is leading the charge against a tax on club revenues with several other clubs confirming staff will lose their jobs next season with overseas camps and study opportunities abandoned once the AFL places a cap upon football department spending.

The yet-to-be-rolled out equalisation measures seem likely to include:

■A 50¢ in the dollar tax on clubs breaking the new football department spending cap.

■The rapid phasing out of Sydney's cost-of-living allowance.

■The removal of the playing veterans' allowance - a move which would have stripped $1 million from Geelong's salary cap last season.

■Another significant pay increase across the board for players.

■A tax on the wealthier club revenues, which would hit hard on clubs such as Collingwood, Hawthorn and West Coast.

■An AFL undertaking not to burden the other 16 clubs in any funding increase to GWS and the Gold Coast.

■The early purchase of Etihad Stadium to lift that financial burden from the Bulldogs, St Kilda and North Melbourne.

Demetriou conceded late on Tuesday that the AFL faced a tough task in its bid to sign off on the series of equalisation principles at Thursday's last-ditch attempt to seek some resolution before next week's Adelaide season launch meeting with all 18 clubs. It is understood that the league had believed it had been close to reaching a resolution before last week's flare-up.

''The meeting was as robust as others I've been involved in, but I wouldn't say it was over the top,'' Demetriou said. ''It probably got a bit heated here and there … It's one of the most significant and important issues facing the industry.

''It's not easy. It's complex and it's challenging, but we need to achieve uncertainty of outcome. As you head more and more down that path towards an outcome the actual detail becomes more challenging.''

Under the proposed socialistic measures, Fairfax Media understands the AFL has proposed to tax clubs 50¢ out of every dollar spent over the football department spending ceiling, which on current figures would cost Collingwood and West Coast between $750,000 to $1.25 million respectively depending on whether the cap was set at $20 million or $21 million.

But it has been the proposed tax on overall club revenues which has angered the Magpies. McGuire's Collingwood is one of five clubs represented on the AFL's working party on equalisation. At least four clubs - the Magpies, Hawthorn, West Coast and Essendon - are becoming increasingly concerned at the AFL's radical plans to improve the poorer, less successful clubs.

Last week's meeting also broke up with several parties increasingly frustrated at the lack of detail. When asked why clubs - including those represented on the working party - had been kept in the dark regarding the costings of the equalisation proposals, Demetriou said significant detail would be unveiled on Thursday.

''We might not reach the final numbers on Thursday,'' he said. ''But the aim is to sign off on a series of principles which we hope to take to all the clubs next week. We just want, as an executive, to take to all the club presidents and chief executives a position but the final numbers will be up to the commission.''

The veterans' allowance sees an additional $118,000 per 10-year, one-club player placed into a club's salary cap. Geelong had nine veterans last season and will field six this year following the departures of Joel Corey, Paul Chapman and Josh Hunt.

But the AFL Players Association is to negotiate an across-the-board increase in total player payments as part of a mid-year collective bargaining agreement review.

While Sydney looks certain to lose its cost-of-living allowance despite commissioning a paper on the issue, its cross-city rivals the Giants will continue to boast a higher salary cap based on its expansion status.

We owe Peter Gordon a debt of gratitude for endeavouring to force the AFL to at least discuss the points raised in today's Age as an attempt towards equalization. Gordon is well aware of the mounting pressures from the likes of Collingwood and Hawthorn to retain the status quo. Clubs like GWS Gold Coast Brisbane Lions and Port Adelaide due to their poor financial returns simply puts extra pressure on the survival of the Victorian based clubs that includes the WB St Kilda and North Melbourne. Etihad has been a noose around our neck for far to long. We play too many twilight games there against Interstate clubs that prove to be financial disasters. Peter Gordon has a hell of a fight on his hands to convince the AFL Commission that we deserve better.

[Remi Moses]

Re: Quiet on the equalisation debate?

Maybe it's time that president stopped interfering in the running of the comp and concerned himself on the outrageous situation of playing a footballer found guilty of Assault!!

[Remi Moses]

Re: Quiet on the equalisation debate?

We owe Peter Gordon a debt of gratitude for endeavouring to force the AFL to at least discuss the points raised in today's Age as an attempt towards equalization. Gordon is well aware of the mounting pressures from the likes of Collingwood and Hawthorn to retain the status quo. Clubs like GWS Gold Coast Brisbane Lions and Port Adelaide due to their poor financial returns simply puts extra pressure on the survival of the Victorian based clubs that includes the WB St Kilda and North Melbourne. Etihad has been a noose around our neck for far to long. We play too many twilight games there against Interstate clubs that prove to be financial disasters. Peter Gordon has a hell of a fight on his hands to convince the AFL Commission that we deserve better.

We know Peter gets on here on occasions, and hope he keeps fighting the good fight.
Enough is Enough

[Greystache]

Re: Quiet on the equalisation debate?

Maybe it's time that president stopped interfering in the running of the comp and concerned himself on the outrageous situation of playing a footballer found guilty of Assault!!

Inflicting grievous bodily harm actually. The court had the option of finding him guilty of the lesser offence of assault and decided his crime was too serious for that charge. It's a disgrace Collingwood are playing him while waiting to be sentenced. I saw the little turd playing against Williamstown last year and that he has been convicted of a serious crime before his 21st birthday comes as no surprise to me.

Funny that Eddie was so keen to get involved in equalisation in the first instance, but is now looking to fight it. In his usual self-serving style he wanted the benefits to Collingwood realised, in the the removal of Sydney's COLA, but none of the negatives like sharing the proceeds from the ridiculously favourable fixture and stadium deal he gets.

[bulldogtragic]

Re: Quiet on the equalisation debate?

Inflicting grievous bodily harm actually. The court had the option of finding him guilty of the lesser offence of assault and decided his crime was too serious for that charge. It's a disgrace Collingwood are playing him while waiting to be sentenced. I saw the little turd playing against Williamstown last year and that he has been convicted of a serious crime before his 21st birthday comes as no surprise to me.

And the AFL investigation into his public racial slur of the now Australian of the Year went where now??

[Remi Moses]

Re: Quiet on the equalisation debate?

Inflicting grievous bodily harm actually. The court had the option of finding him guilty of the lesser offence of assault and decided his crime was too serious for that charge. It's a disgrace Collingwood are playing him while waiting to be sentenced. I saw the little turd playing against Williamstown last year and that he has been convicted of a serious crime before his 21st birthday comes as no surprise to me.

Funny that Eddie was so keen to get involved in equalisation in the first instance, but is now looking to fight it. In his usual self-serving style he wanted the benefits to Collingwood realised, in the the removal of Sydney's COLA, but none of the negatives like sharing the proceeds from the ridiculously favourable fixture and stadium deal he gets.

Just ventured to the world of teenage footy site of big footy.
Hawthorn fans talking about how there are to many Victorian sides.
Must have all been born before 1996.
Of course the Dayle Garlett story is a media beat up.
Just can't wait for a few crap years and they're back to getting nobody at their games

[Remi Moses]

Re: Quiet on the equalisation debate?

And the AFL investigation into his public racial slur of the now Australian of the Year went where now??

Eddie hubris

[Hotdog60]

Re: Quiet on the equalisation debate?

Why is it so hard, all the teams are in the competition for the good of the game. All gate takings gets pooled together and dispersed evenly around the clubs. Then the bastardised fixture doesn't hurt as much.