Here is quite an interesting article from the age .. AFL clubs in spending 'arms race'

''This arms race in football has been going on for some time, and just as the costs of running a club are going up, revenue is starting to plateau,'' Evans warned.

Last season, Carlton lifted its football department spending by 18 per cent on the previous year, while Hawthorn was up 13 per cent. Only the bottom-four-ranked clubs - Fremantle, Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne - didn't lift football department spending by at least 10 per cent.

Edited March 28, 201015 yr by hangon007

Here is quite an interesting article from the age .. AFL clubs in spending 'arms race'

''This arms race in football has been going on for some time, and just as the costs of running a club are going up, revenue is starting to plateau,'' Evans warned.

Last season, Carlton lifted its football department spending by 18 per cent on the previous year, while Hawthorn was up 13 per cent. Only the bottom-four-ranked clubs - Fremantle, Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne - didn't lift football department spending by at least 10 per cent.

Very interesting article. We own very little as a club and still have a lot of B graders on our list. Thank god for 4-5 young guns.

This is a strong arguement that no club will survive a 5 year complete rebuild.

That is not to say we do not draft the best kids we can-but 5 years of yesterdays standard (year 3 started yesterday) i doubt we will survive.

Hope i am wrong.

Very interesting article. We own very little as a club and still have a lot of B graders on our list. Thank god for 4-5 young guns.

This is a strong arguement that no club will survive a 5 year complete rebuild.

That is not to say we do not draft the best kids we can-but 5 years of yesterdays standard (year 3 started yesterday) i doubt we will survive.

Hope i am wrong.

Yeah its a pretty good article sadly its not a "Knee jerk" trash talking article.

Here is quite an interesting article from the age .. AFL clubs in spending 'arms race'

''This arms race in football has been going on for some time, and just as the costs of running a club are going up, revenue is starting to plateau,'' Evans warned.

Last season, Carlton lifted its football department spending by 18 per cent on the previous year, while Hawthorn was up 13 per cent. Only the bottom-four-ranked clubs - Fremantle, Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne - didn't lift football department spending by at least 10 per cent.

The advantage the club has is that we will never be removed from the competition due to performances, on the flip side we will be if we continue to perform poorly financially. In the long term I hope the club is capable of acquiring strong assets so that we are able to compete with the likes of Essendon off the field. Does anyone know what the clubs plans are in terms of building assets after the club has wiped its debts?

The advantage the club has is that we will never be removed from the competition due to performances, on the flip side we will be if we continue to perform poorly financially. In the long term I hope the club is capable of acquiring strong assets so that we are able to compete with the likes of Essendon off the field. Does anyone know what the clubs plans are in terms of building assets after the club has wiped its debts?

NO NO NO This is exactly the attitude that must be wiped out otherwise we will never get anywhere. If our performances are bad, we will be removed.

NO NO NO This is exactly the attitude that must be wiped out otherwise we will never get anywhere. If our performances are bad, we will be removed.

Name one club that has been removed for poor performance? The only clubs to die have died because of financial stress. eg: Fitzroy, South Melbourne. Performance & financial stability can be linked, however do you think a club like Collingwood would be removed from the comp if they were on the bottom of the ladder for five years consecutively?

The point I'm trying to make is that we are lucky we don't get relogated etc for poor performance. The advantage we have in regards to the article written is that we can build a business model that will allow the club to remain within the AFL and compete in the AFL if we work hard and are smart enough to do it.

Name one club that has been removed for poor performance?

How do you define performance?

How do you think the AFL define performance?

How do you define performance?

How do you think the AFL define performance?

Has the AFL or VFL excluded a team for poor on field performance? Yes or No?

Has the AFL or VFL excluded a team for poor on field performance? Yes or No?

You can't get relegated for being crap in the AFL, so YIPEE for that.... however consistently bad performances rot the club from onfield to off, turning off sponsors and supporters, potential supports and players and ultimately you have an unpopular club with minimal funds. The hangmans waiting, noose griped tightly in hands... how long could anyone survive?

Name one club that has been removed for poor performance? The only clubs to die have died because of financial stress. eg: Fitzroy, South Melbourne. Performance & financial stability can be linked, however do you think a club like Collingwood would be removed from the comp if they were on the bottom of the ladder for five years consecutively?

The point I'm trying to make is that we are lucky we don't get relogated etc for poor performance. The advantage we have in regards to the article written is that we can build a business model that will allow the club to remain within the AFL and compete in the AFL if we work hard and are smart enough to do it.

with the 2 new teams arriving over the next years if we continue to be poor on field, no sponsor will touch us and we will die.

with the 2 new teams arriving over the next years if we continue to be poor on field, no sponsor will touch us and we will die.

Both of your points are valid. However if the club is able to put into place a business model that is not reliant solely on how the club performs on field then we will have a place in the AFL.

Both of your points are valid. However if the club is able to put into place a business model that is not reliant solely on how the club performs on field then we will have a place in the AFL.

If we do not perform well on the field, nobody will come to watch. If a business plan helps us to employ the best people well thats great, but a good business plan will not soley save a football club.

The hangmans waiting, noose griped tightly in hands... how long could anyone survive?

As long as the AFL keep tipping the money in to help us survive.

I just dont understand why so many dont know we were gone last year had it not been for the AFL.

However, our survival came at a price ... our hangman is now our master.

Our master defines our acceptable performance - not us.

If we do not perform well on the field, nobody will come to watch. If a business plan helps us to employ the best people well thats great, but a good business plan will not soley save a football club.

I'll disagree with that, the on field performance of the club is one part of the business plan/model. Yes it impacts on revenue through sponsorship, merchandise, memberships, gate receipts etc. It is not the be all and end all of making a profit however. It certainly helps I'll agree and will make it easier for us to achieve a break even result or profit. It doesn't solely contribute to whether we will still be in existence though.

There's other ways of staying afloat financially than displaying good on field performances and these are the areas the club needs to start exploiting.

I'll disagree with that, the on field performance of the club is one part of the business plan/model. Yes it impacts on revenue through sponsorship, merchandise, memberships, gate receipts etc. It is not the be all and end all of making a profit however. It certainly helps I'll agree and will make it easier for us to achieve a break even result or profit. It doesn't solely contribute to whether we will still be in existence though.

There's other ways of staying afloat financially than displaying good on field performances and these are the areas the club needs to start exploiting.

Yes i can see that,but..if we do not perform we will not generate enough $$$ to be able to implement a business plan. Why would sponsors want to be associated to a club people are openly laughing at. (My phone has been busy today-i have copped a hammering)

i do agree but a business plan should always be in tandem to the on field.

The CEO can drive a commodore if it means we keep a great player.

Yes i can see that,but..if we do not perform we will not generate enough $$$ to be able to implement a business plan. Why would sponsors want to be associated to a club people are openly laughing at. (My phone has been busy today-i have copped a hammering)

i do agree but a business plan should always be in tandem to the on field.

The CEO can drive a commodore if it means we keep a great player.

Well that's where we differ. I don't agree that the business plan should entirely depend on on field performance.

Well that's where we differ. I don't agree that the business plan should entirely depend on on field performance.

But we are a football team, the on field should always be the ultimate situation. The Business plan just feeds it.

But we are a football team, the on field should always be the ultimate situation. The Business plan just feeds it.

Well that would mean that any time the club is poor on field we are poor off it. It makes a weak position for the club.

Well that would mean that any time the club is poor on field we are poor off it. It makes a weak position for the club.

No it doesn't. on field will always dip and peak but a business plan should always be feeding the football club to climb.

We should never have a business plan just in order to survive-what's the point?

Edited March 28, 201015 yr by why you little

No it doesn't. on field will always dip and peak but a business plan should always be feeding the football club to climb.

We should never have a business plan just in order to survive-what's the point?

Your initial argument was that if we perform poor on field we will be removed from the AFL. The statement is not entirely true and is determined by a variety of different factors not just on field.

In reply to your last post survival is the point and the main goal, without survival there is no football club. The second goal should be to build assets. If you have a good business model in place with assets to create income outside of the income generated from on field issues you have a strong club that is not reliant on income generated from things that are often variable, such as revenue created from on field performance. From the assets you acquire you will then have more money to invest back into the club. You may argue that if we are poor on field we are stuffed and that revenue to acquire assets may never come which may be the case, however there are a lot more ways to be a strong club than by relying on how you perform in terms of ladder position and premierships won. Collingwood has won 1 flag in 50 years yet they still manage to be strong off the field.

I realize what you are trying to say, however I don't agree with it entirely. Lets agree to disagree on this issue.

Your initial argument was that if we perform poor on field we will be removed from the AFL. The statement is not entirely true and is determined by a variety of different factors not just on field.

In reply to your last post survival is the point and the main goal, without survival there is no football club. The second goal should be to build assets. If you have a good business model in place with assets to create income outside of the income generated from on field issues you have a strong club that is not reliant on income generated from things that are often variable, such as revenue created from on field performance. From the assets you acquire you will then have more money to invest back into the club. You may argue that if we are poor on field we are stuffed and that revenue to acquire assets may never come which may be the case, however there are a lot more ways to be a strong club than by relying on how you perform in terms of ladder position and premierships won. Collingwood has won 1 flag in 50 years yet they still manage to be strong off the field.

I realize what you are trying to say, however I don't agree with it entirely. Lets agree to disagree on this issue.

I really like your post. Good quality input. Thank-you

In my opinion, the ultimate aim of any organisation that is not a charity, is to make money. But I guess money is only earned so that it can be spent on something. Perhaps having a successful footy team is one of those things. In the same way that a person works to earn money so they can buy a membership so they can watch their team do well, a football club has a responsibility to transform the money it receives from members into what the members bought their memberships for - to see their team do well. If their team doesn't do well, then either not enough money is being spent on that area - or it's being spent poorly.