Clubs may lose AFL funding

[Trisul 664]

Envelope bends?

[Left Field 313]

Envelope bends?

Once again the AFL is virtually accused of being churlish and thuggish in the way it deals with its stakeholders.

Certainly I have not seen a less tactful or inclusive organisation in my 30 year business career.

[Dee*ceiving 1,674]

How can this be possible? The game is richer than ever and we have no idea at this stage if the global economic climate will have any effect on AFL spending for the current season. Most clubs memberships are already up on last year so early indications suggest it will not be the case.

Why don’t the AFL rationalise the cost of beers and pies at the ground and crunch the money hungry companies like spotless from draining the people supporting the game dry. Clubs having facilities equal to their peers is their right and will help to develop an equitable competition upon which the league can continue to prosper. The communities that hose these club facilities exist will also benefit greatly from the improvements proposed (unless it involves pokies and TABS).

The league is rich and successful because of the 16 clubs, not the other way around. Unfortunately this is rarely recognised and reciprocated.

If Melbourne is lost to the league or the ability to be competitive in future the game will lose me. I am sure I am not the only one to feel this way.

[occo 2]

How can this be possible? The game is richer than ever and we have no idea at this stage if the global economic climate will have any effect on AFL spending for the current season. Most clubs memberships are already up on last year so early indications suggest it will not be the case.

Why don’t the AFL rationalise the cost of beers and pies at the ground and crunch the money hungry companies like spotless from draining the people supporting the game dry. Clubs having facilities equal to their peers is their right and will help to develop an equitable competition upon which the league can continue to prosper. The communities that hose these club facilities exist will also benefit greatly from the improvements proposed (unless it involves pokies and TABS).

The league is rich and successful because of the 16 clubs, not the other way around. Unfortunately this is rarely recognised and reciprocated.

If Melbourne is lost to the league or the ability to be competitive in future the game will lose me. I am sure I am not the only one to feel this way.

Mark my words. The MFC are in serious trouble. Clubs are announcing due to the economic climate that they will make little if any profit in 2009. Cats came out saying they expect to make a very small profit and collingwood will loose 1 mill. We are not cashed up as is and no sponcer, the smallest membership and afl funding lost we are seriously stuffed. We cant keep asking non MFC supporters for money due to last years fundraser and ordinary households have little money as it is.

[Guest JACKtheRIPPER]

thats a bit unfair from the AFL considering the bulldogs went to arizona this year on a training camp,yet our blokes were up in the high plains eating cans of baked beans,i think it depends on whos flavour of the month when it comes to the AFL.

[montasaurus 0]

Why don’t the AFL rationalise the cost of beers and pies at the ground and crunch the money hungry companies like spotless from draining the people supporting the game dry.

I would suggest that this is a venue driven agreement that would be rubber stamped by the afl to ensure the "right" food is served. So for the MCG, the MCC get an oportunity to charge a staggering rent or licencing fees to sell these goods. If this is the case keep in mind the $1m the MCC have "given" the MFC. It would be interesting to know about the vendors outside the "G" if they are covered by the city of melbourne in yarra park or MCC arrangements.

I wont go into the "Coll___" arrangements at TD being there is an individual involved that was at one time AFL, CLUB, Venue and catering interests all at the same time. i don't think this effects the MCG though

[TonyMelb 7]

I wont go into the "Coll___" arrangements at TD being there is an individual involved that was at one time AFL, CLUB, Venue and catering interests all at the same time. i don't think this effects the MCG though

What about the Bummers deal at TD????? way more preferrential.!

[Guest hangon007]

Just goes to show that its all in the way you phrase it according to the media.

We get 1 million dollars worth of "charity" from the AFL yet they get "6 million" in "development grants."

Where told ... "you got no history, you got no money and your brand is meaningless"

There told ... "no problems we will give you development grants of many millions of $$$$ without any financial's submitted" then when a so called global economic crisis strikes ... some bean counter says wait a minute and the AFL & clubs then get into a debate.

[Little Goffy 14,451]

Uhhh... guys... this particular article has nothing to do with MFC directly.

It's about the three clubs which are currently engaging in $10m+ redevelopments, and the AFL getting narky about whether the clubs have genuinely covered those costs (through government, council or sponsor partners) rather than exposing themselves to potentially disasterous debts.

In principle, it's right of the AFL to be keeping a close eye on this stuff - let's imagine that the Arden St redevelopment goes $3m over it's $15m plan, or there's a similar shortfall in the funds that actually materialise - that puts that club in a whole heap of debt, the kind that was threatening our immediate future just six months ago.

But once again, the AFL seems incapable of doing anything without insisting that everyone else is foolish and blind, but they are forever wise, and making a bunch of implied threats along the way.

Anyway, our strategic situation remains as it was

- get a solid major sponsor = ok (break even) for 2009.

- meaningful but not necessarily dramatic improvement = better fixture, exposure and attendence for 2010.

- follow through on commitment to Casey area + new, mobilised culture from the club = begin to see real improvements in underlying support base by 2011

- win 2012 flag.

[Dee*ceiving 1,674]

Uhhh... guys... this particular article has nothing to do with MFC directly.

No [censored]...It's still worthy of discussion!

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Uhhh... guys... this particular article has nothing to do with MFC directly.

It's about the three clubs which are currently engaging in $10m+ redevelopments, and the AFL getting narky about whether the clubs have genuinely covered those costs (through government, council or sponsor partners) rather than exposing themselves to potentially disasterous debts.

In principle, it's right of the AFL to be keeping a close eye on this stuff - let's imagine that the Arden St redevelopment goes $3m over it's $15m plan, or there's a similar shortfall in the funds that actually materialise - that puts that club in a whole heap of debt, the kind that was threatening our immediate future just six months ago.

.........

Anyway, our strategic situation remains as it was

- get a solid major sponsor = ok (break even) for 2009.

- meaningful but not necessarily dramatic improvement = better fixture, exposure and attendence for 2010.

- follow through on commitment to Casey area + new, mobilised culture from the club = begin to see real improvements in underlying support base by 2011

- win 2012 flag.

Good post DD. I actually think the AFL is very concerned about the financial performance of a number of Clubs during the recession and not just NM and MFC.

I would also add the MCC outcome to our strategic situation. Sponsor or no Sponsor, our future is in the hands of the MCC and AFL.

No [censored]...It's still worthy of discussion!

Pity its been rather content free aside from DD's post. Maybe you have some profound insight into this beyond the opening tough talk.

[Sir Why You Little 36,971]

A lot of clubs will struggle this year, really struggle. Port Adelaide I believe could be a real Basket Case. Time will tell. We will be under the pump no doubt but our alliance with the MCC may be our best assett. I Hope so.

What i do object to is the AFL starting up new Franchaises up while Founding Clubs are in Trouble. "Clean up the Back yard before Buying another"

[Little Goffy 14,451]

Ha! AFL can getted stuffed - bullying clubs about ensuring facility financing and then...

AFL complete knobs at stadium financing arrangements

And yes, I agree it's a worthy topic of conversation - I was just pointing out that it doesn't affect the MFC directly, as a couple of posts had implications that there was a connection between the facility finances kerfuffle and MFC competitive balance fund.