Quiet on the equalisation debate?

[Remi Moses]

Just wondering why we've been so quite on the whole equalisation discussion?
I read Melbourne want to be a leader on the issue, yet we've been silent on a very important issue!
Wouldn't mind some transparency on ideas or thoughts from our club?

[Bulldog4life]

Re: Quiet on the equalisation debate?

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/club-leaders-urge-afl-to-buy-etihad-stadium-20130207-2e1f8.html

ETIHAD Stadium should be bought immediately with money from the AFL's Future Fund to solve the structural problems that are crippling the less financial clubs through onerous stadium deals, an extraordinary meeting of the leaders of wealthier clubs has resolved.

The AFL should also scrap all salary cap concessions for clubs - including the cost of living allowance - and abandon all draft concessions if they are to revisit the broad idea of equalisation.

On Wednesday, as news of the Essendon scandal engulfed the football world, a small collection of club presidents and chief executives met to discuss the AFL's decision to return to the problem of equalisation and the widening wealth gap between clubs.

Carlton president Stephen Kernahan and chief executive Greg Swann, Collingwood president Eddie McGuire and chief executive Gary Pert, Hawthorn president Andrew Newbold and Richmond president Gary March were at the lunch organised by McGuire.
Advertisement

Essendon chief executive Ian Robson was due to attend but had more pressing matters to attend to, but he indicated the club's support for the position. Club chairman David Evans was also unable to attend.

West Coast and Fremantle officials were not present but both indicated their support.

''We are one year into a five-year policy that was done at the time of the new broadcast rights deal and the AFL is saying it might not be enough, so you are going to have to pay more,'' Newbold said.

''I think if we are fair dinkum about this we have to look under every stone and at every alternative. As the people being asked to share some of the money they have worked bloody hard to earn we think we would like to at least look at the information in detail to understand the problem.''

The club leaders had a view that if the AFL was renewing its view of equalisation then all unequalising factors should be addressed and so all draft concessions should be removed and all salary cap relief - such as the contentious cost of living allowances - be removed.

The clubs were angered that the premiers last year, the Sydney Swans, were the club able to satisfy the demands of the most highly paid free agent in Kurt Tippett.

''The GWS have indigestion they have so many draft picks, and we think the cost of living allowance is an outdated policy, the logic of which if extended should mean Adelaide has a lower salary cap, and in Perth a higher one,'' Newbold said.

The clubs were angry the AFL had sought to return to the issue of equalisation only 12 months into a five-year plan of income redistribution which they had all voluntarily signed up to.

One club official said there was resentment that wealthier clubs were being presented as the only option for solving the disparity and that structural issues such as the poor stadium deals for clubs were not discussed.

''Why are Hawthorn - who are innovative and have worked bloody hard to get ourselves to where we are now - being penalised because the Bulldogs have to write out cheques each year to play games at Etihad Stadium?'' Newbold asked.

''We think they need to look at buying Etihad Stadium as soon as possible. We think there is a need to look at these issues structurally, not just look at taking more money off the wealthier clubs.''

March said the group was frustrated and angry that a year into the five-year plan they had agreed to without complaint they were being told the plan hadn't worked and that they should trust the AFL's new plans and agree to just give more money. ''What level of funding will be needed to keep these clubs viable?'' he asked.

''We need to look at all things. Not only buying Etihad Stadium but do we need to look at a boutique 25,000 to 30,000 seat stadium?''

[Remi Moses]

Re: Quiet on the equalisation debate?

Still no quotes from Simon Garlick or Peter Gordon.

[chef]

Re: Quiet on the equalisation debate?

Are you surprised?

Maybe they don't want to bite the hand that feeds us.

[Maddog37]

Re: Quiet on the equalisation debate?

If they want to go down the equalisation route then Eddie and his bum boys would no doubt agree to a salary cap on total footy dept spending. In the spirit of a level playing field and all that...........

[Ghost Dog]

Re: Quiet on the equalisation debate?

we need the bigger clubs like Hawthorn to draw people to games and taking money off them as a part of any tax deal seems simplistic. It would be better to fix this statdium situation as the article hints. but how long is that going to take? Every year robs us. We are not the only club getting screwed by stadium deals either. Carlton and North are in less than ideal situations.

[The Adelaide Connection]

Re: Quiet on the equalisation debate?

The reality is the horrific injustices in the fixture and broadcasting of games will always cripple a club like ours.

We are the product on the bottom shelf at the supermarket that nobody notices, whilst others get the eye level spot with multiple facings. Guess which one sells? Guess who has the most members and displays the most growth?

If you were a company that was looking to sponsor an AFL club, who would you look at: the one that gets prime time tv space every week or the one destined to spend their life getting 6 games a year on free to air and playing eternal Sunday twilights?

Even in the 2008-10 period, when some of the "power" clubs were struggling, we still couldn't get close to their exposure.

Eddie and co. want to stop handing out money? Lets see how willing they are to take only 1/18th share of Anzac Day, Friday night footy, and all of the other Prime time spots instead of the share they currently make up.

[Remi Moses]

Re: Quiet on the equalisation debate?

The reality is the horrific injustices in the fixture and broadcasting of games will always cripple a club like ours.

We are the product on the bottom shelf at the supermarket that nobody notices, whilst others get the eye level spot with multiple facings. Guess which one sells? Guess who has the most members and displays the most growth?

If you were a company that was looking to sponsor an AFL club, who would you look at: the one that gets prime time tv space every week or the one destined to spend their life getting 6 games a year on free to air and playing eternal Sunday twilights?

Even in the 2008-10 period, when some of the "power" clubs were struggling, we still couldn't get close to their exposure.

Eddie and co. want to stop handing out money? Lets see how willing they are to take only 1/18th share of Anzac Day, Friday night footy, and all of the other Prime time spots instead of the share they currently make up.

Here here. The argument that really got up my goat was the " only good sides get prime slots".
Bet London to a brick in a few years the big boys are still getting the big piece of the pie when they're struggling. Complete joke and an insult

[Hotdog60]

Re: Quiet on the equalisation debate?

The reality is the horrific injustices in the fixture and broadcasting of games will always cripple a club like ours.

We are the product on the bottom shelf at the supermarket that nobody notices, whilst others get the eye level spot with multiple facings. Guess which one sells? Guess who has the most members and displays the most growth?

If you were a company that was looking to sponsor an AFL club, who would you look at: the one that gets prime time tv space every week or the one destined to spend their life getting 6 games a year on free to air and playing eternal Sunday twilights?

Even in the 2008-10 period, when some of the "power" clubs were struggling, we still couldn't get close to their exposure.

Eddie and co. want to stop handing out money? Lets see how willing they are to take only 1/18th share of Anzac Day, Friday night footy, and all of the other Prime time spots instead of the share they currently make up.

Well put, this should make prime time news and see what the response is. If they don't what to feed us then give us equal rights. The power clubs what their cake and eat too.

Hang on I'm having a flashback

[FrediKanoute]

Re: Quiet on the equalisation debate?

If they want to go down the equalisation route then Eddie and his bum boys would no doubt agree to a salary cap on total footy dept spending. In the spirit of a level playing field and all that...........

I think this is coming. I think the drugs fiasco will show that the clubs rorting the system aren't the weaker clubes but the richer clubs with the ability to employ more sports science people and spend more on more elaborate/effective supplements.

What the drugs issue has shown is that having more dispodable income doesn't mean you spend it for the good of the game.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Quiet on the equalisation debate?

I think this is coming. I think the drugs fiasco will show that the clubs rorting the system aren't the weaker clubes but the richer clubs with the ability to employ more sports science people and spend more on more elaborate/effective supplements.

What the drugs issue has shown is that having more dispodable income doesn't mean you spend it for the good of the game.

I'm sure every official — and the players as well — at every club in the land has “play to the spirit of the game” as the very last item on their job description, if it's even there. If we look at AFL as an industry — which it is — and the clubs as rival businesses — which they are — then this is just a classic case of the need for tighter regulations.

If the AFL doesn't want to rein in the bigger clubs in terms of taxing them financially, they need to ensure the following inequalities are resolved:

• The fixture
• The stadium deals
• Enforcing the salary cap to the cent
• Ensuring a drug-free environment (both recreational and PE)

To me, taxing the large clubs financially shows the unwillingness of the AFL to look at the items above (amongst other issues). They are simply papering over the cracks.

[Bulldog Joe]

Re: Quiet on the equalisation debate?

I'm sure every official — and the players as well — at every club in the land has “play to the spirit of the game” as the very last item on their job description, if it's even there. If we look at AFL as an industry — which it is — and the clubs as rival businesses — which they are — then this is just a classic case of the need for tighter regulations.

If the AFL doesn't want to rein in the bigger clubs in terms of taxing them financially, they need to ensure the following inequalities are resolved:

• The fixture
• The stadium deals
• Enforcing the salary cap to the cent
• Ensuring a drug-free environment (both recreational and PE)

To me, taxing the large clubs financially shows the unwillingness of the AFL to look at the items above (amongst other issues). They are simply papering over the cracks.

Many of the ineqities would be resolved if we started by sharing ALL gate revenue as the combined income of the 18 clubs.

Collingwood and Essendon do not need a head start with the ANZAC day game. It belongs to the entire competition.

The Stadium deals would not exist if the AFL took all revenue and paid all expenses and then distributed evenly.

[Remi Moses]

Re: Quiet on the equalisation debate?

Many of the ineqities would be resolved if we started by sharing ALL gate revenue as the combined income of the 18 clubs.

Collingwood and Essendon do not need a head start with the ANZAC day game. It belongs to the entire competition.

The Stadium deals would not exist if the AFL took all revenue and paid all expenses and then distributed evenly.

Right on BJ.
Drives me insane the term "handouts" "AFL Dripfeed".
The only major sporting comp where they deliberately have a revenue raising fixture!
Massive inequality, and the gate receipts of all games should be shared.

[jeemak]

Re: Quiet on the equalisation debate?

Right on BJ.
Drives me insane the term "handouts" "AFL Dripfeed".
The only major sporting comp where they deliberately have a revenue raising fixture!
Massive inequality, and the gate receipts of all games should be shared.

Powerful clubs will argue that their supporters are producing the revenue, and as such they should benefit from that revenue as a priority.

I can understand that point of view.

What really irks me is the horrible returns our club benefits (sic) from subsidise the purchase of Etihad Stadium long term. If we had a better deal with Etihad Stadium, the AFL's projected purchase of 2025 would be drawn out, unless significant revenues were set aside by the AFL to bring the purchase date to align with 2025.

As a club we need to be wary that any AFL assistance in negotiating a better return on home games for us will be clouded by the AFL understanding that if they want to purchase the stadium it will come at a higher revenue cost prior to 2025, and that clubs like ours will likely have to subsidise that.

It concerns me that the AFL needs a critical mass of games played by tenants of Etihad to satisfy their long term goal of acquiring the stadium as an asset. I can't see the AFL gifting our club the proceeds of the eventual sale of the stadium, or the profit from clean revenue it generates once it's been acquired are realised.

[Bulldog Joe]

Re: Quiet on the equalisation debate?

Powerful clubs will argue that their supporters are producing the revenue, and as such they should benefit from that revenue as a priority.

I can understand that point of view.

What really irks me is the horrible returns our club benefits (sic) from subsidise the purchase of Etihad Stadium long term. If we had a better deal with Etihad Stadium, the AFL's projected purchase of 2025 would be drawn out, unless significant revenues were set aside by the AFL to bring the purchase date to align with 2025.As a club we need to be wary that any AFL assistance in negotiating a better return on home games for us will be clouded by the AFL understanding that if they want to purchase the stadium it will come at a higher revenue cost prior to 2025, and that clubs like ours will likely have to subsidise that.

It concerns me that the AFL needs a critical mass of games played by tenants of Etihad to satisfy their long term goal of acquiring the stadium as an asset. I can't see the AFL gifting our club the proceeds of the eventual sale of the stadium, or the profit from clean revenue it generates once it's been acquired are realised.

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.