On 16/04/2010 at 03:43, Rogue said:

I think you've side-stepped my argument, which essentially boils down to this:

First, that the AFL has significant revenue.

Second, that the AFL primarily generates revenue based on the 16 (atm) professional teams.

Third, that the Clubs are entitled to a reasonable slice of the cake.

Fourth, that this slice would be large enough to not only sustain a Club, but allow it to prosper.

Given the AFL's sitting on so much coin, it's interesting that there isn't more debate about how the money is used.

If the money doesn't go to the clubs, how is that money used?

One way I can think of is expansion of the league which will bring in more money to be spread between the teams (admittedly there will be more of them)

I think the AFL spends a lot of money on growing the game for the game's benefit.

I don't necessarily agree the MCC is good for our club either.

This current arrangement has MFC supporters with MCC membership paying the majority of their money to the MCC instead of their club.

Surely you don't think that's a good thing.

I think it outweighs the benefits, perceived or real, of being linked to the MCC as we

are.

  On 16/04/2010 at 01:43, JACKATTACK said:

Demographically speaking, there are 3 clubs that are well placed to leverage Melbourne's projected population growth over the next 20 years.

Bulldogs, North, and Melbourne.

The key here is tapping into those who don't have a previous affiliation with a club, immigrants, which also happen to be the big driver behind our population growth. Strong population growth is projected for areas that could identify itself as "North Melbourne". To 2026 roughly 170,000 people.

They'll have to hold on for a long time but if they can do that and successfully tap into the growth they might be able to pull themselves out (speaking in the very long term here).

By comparison, the dogs, if smart about it could become a much larger club, the growth there is expected to be 216,000 in 16 years, a large portion of which will be immigration. Melbourne's targeted area Casey/Cardinia is projected to grow by 180,000.

theres a projected 9,500 homes going around CF in the nxt 4yrs some men see a vision, some see an argument.

  On 16/04/2010 at 04:24, Enforcer25 said:

I don't necessarily agree the MCC is good for our club either.

This current arrangement has MFC supporters with MCC membership paying the majority of their money to the MCC instead of their club.

Surely you don't think that's a good thing.

I think it outweighs the benefits, perceived or real, of being linked to the MCC as we

are.

I'm an MCC member. but I'm also a MFC 11 game member. I don't opt for the MCC/MFC upon renewal. I figure I can help the MFC more this way. I don't have to, but I do because it's my club that I want to see prosper.

Pretty sure others would do the same, I'm not the only Melbourne supporter/member which does this. I understand why some wouldn't and I don't really blame them.

  On 16/04/2010 at 04:36, Grimes to Watts said:

I'm an MCC member. but I'm also a MFC 11 game member. I don't opt for the MCC/MFC upon renewal. I figure I can help the MFC more this way. I don't have to, but I do because it's my club that I want to see prosper.

Pretty sure others would do the same, I'm not the only Melbourne supporter/member which does this. I understand why some wouldn't and I don't really blame them.

I myself purchase the MFC/MCC premium membership which is about the same I think.

It's not a question of understanding people's motives, it is more a question of a situation that leads to this option.

Remove the MCC and our supporters would be forced to buy memberships and the club would receive more money.

I know it's not that simple, but I believe that's the reality.

  On 16/04/2010 at 04:20, Balls_Grinter_14 said:

Glad I missed out on the rath of Rogue..shhheeessh!!

Oh, it wasn't meant to be angsty at all

I just wanted to outline my suggestion, as clearly as possible, so that RR could see what I was saying (and hopefully give me/us his opinion).

  On 16/04/2010 at 04:22, Enforcer25 said:

If the money doesn't go to the clubs, how is that money used?

One way I can think of is expansion of the league which will bring in more money to be spread between the teams (admittedly there will be more of them)

I think the AFL spends a lot of money on growing the game for the game's benefit.

Where the money goes is a great question. Media reports have suggested the AFL is sitting on a 'war chest' so it seems a significant amount of money is in the AFL kitty.

As I said, my 1/16th comment was flippant, but I think there's more than enough to 'support the game' and support the Clubs.

  On 16/04/2010 at 04:20, Balls_Grinter_14 said:

What do you reckon of the idea to have MCC give us a proportianate amount based on our MFC/MCC memberships mate? Any comment?

In theory I like it.

That said, we're already receiving support from the MCC - and other Clubs don't, as far as I know - so I imagine it's based primarily on the fact we have many MCC members.

I can't recall the figures, but I wonder what it works out to per MFC-supporting MCC member.

No doubt our historical connection plays a part, but if there were no MFC-supporting MCC members I doubt they'd be couching up.

  On 16/04/2010 at 04:24, Enforcer25 said:

I don't necessarily agree the MCC is good for our club either.

This current arrangement has MFC supporters with MCC membership paying the majority of their money to the MCC instead of their club.

Surely you don't think that's a good thing.

I think it outweighs the benefits, perceived or real, of being linked to the MCC as we are.

  On 16/04/2010 at 04:43, Enforcer25 said:

It's not a question of understanding people's motives, it is more a question of a situation that leads to this option.

Remove the MCC and our supporters would be forced to buy memberships and the club would receive more money.

I know it's not that simple, but I believe that's the reality.

If the MCC didn't currently exist and we were deciding, right now, whether to create one that would mirror what the MCC is today, then I could side with you.

However, the MCC exists, they offer MCC memberships and a significant number of MFC-supporting members purchase MCC memberships.

We need to deal with that, and I think that the best way of benefiting from this situation is working with the MCC.

  On 16/04/2010 at 03:43, Rogue said:

Third, that the Clubs are entitled to a reasonable slice of the cake.

Fourth, that this slice would be large enough to not only sustain a Club, but allow it to prosper.

Given the AFL's sitting on so much coin, it's interesting that there isn't more debate about how the money is used.

The issue is that the money is at the control of the AFL and its interests not individual clubs.

If the amount was indeed reasonable that allowed clubs to prosper then clubs would not be chasing corporate sponsors, additional membership or resorting to tin rattles. The reason they do this is the AFL income only goes so far and that Clubs like the gaming, sponsorship and membership revenue because its there direct funds controlled by the Clubs and not received at the call of the AFL.

It is clear that from the experiences of WB, NM, MFC and the Tigers in Melb, PA in SA that this clearly is not the case.

  On 16/04/2010 at 04:54, Rogue said:

If the MCC didn't currently exist and we were deciding, right now, whether to create one that would mirror what the MCC is today, then I could side with you.

However, the MCC exists, they offer MCC memberships and a significant number of MFC-supporting members purchase MCC memberships.

We need to deal with that, and I think that the best way of benefiting from this situation is working with the MCC.

Salient point.

Find a way to make the situation work for you, I agree.

  On 16/04/2010 at 05:02, Rhino Richards said:

The issue is that the money is at the control of the AFL and its interests not individual clubs.

If the amount was indeed reasonable that allowed clubs to prosper then clubs would not be chasing corporate sponsors, additional membership or resorting to tin rattles. The reason they do this is the AFL income only goes so far and that Clubs like the gaming, sponsorship and membership revenue because its there direct funds controlled by the Clubs and not received at the call of the AFL.

It is clear that from the experiences of WB, NM, MFC and the Tigers in Melb, PA in SA that this clearly is not the case.

To give that much money to the clubs would also involve an element of trust of the AFL's behalf that the clubs would use that money responsibly rather than, for example, pour it into a hotel in port melbourne (collingwood)

It would be more disasterous for clubs to spend money irresponsibly and then when they do need a bailout the AFL's pockets are bare.

Obviously there would be a happy medium, but who is to say we are not there now?

The AFL has given us handouts when needed and we, like the other struggling clubs in recent times, have kept our heads above water.

By not handing out even more, the AFL has forced into action to save our club and i think we should all be able to agree that only good has come out of it for MFC.

It's a delicate balance.

  On 16/04/2010 at 05:02, Rhino Richards said:

The issue is that the money is at the control of the AFL and its interests not individual clubs.

If the amount was indeed reasonable that allowed clubs to prosper then clubs would not be chasing corporate sponsors, additional membership or resorting to tin rattles. The reason they do this is the AFL income only goes so far and that Clubs like the gaming, sponsorship and membership revenue because its there direct funds controlled by the Clubs and not received at the call of the AFL.

It's not clear to me which of my points you disagree with (if any), or what your contention is.

To be clear, I didn't argue that Clubs already receive a slice of the cake that allows them to prosper.

Are you arguing that the AFL doesn't have the means to reasonably provide more of the revenue to the Club? Surely not.

Are you arguing that the Clubs don't deserve more of the cake? Maybe.

Are you arguing that the AFL can reasonably give more to the Clubs but simply doesn't want to? That's essentially what my point boils down to.

I tried to break my argument down into discrete premises so it'd be easy to reply to

  On 16/04/2010 at 05:36, Enforcer25 said:

To give that much money to the clubs would also involve an element of trust of the AFL's behalf that the clubs would use that money responsibly rather than, for example, pour it into a hotel in port melbourne (collingwood)

There could be stipulations that the money be spent in particular ways (a la tied grants from the Commonwealth to the States).

Alternatively, the AFL could just fund some of the operations directly (ie. salary cap payments).

  On 16/04/2010 at 05:36, Enforcer25 said:

The AFL has given us handouts when needed and we, like the other struggling clubs in recent times, have kept our heads above water.

By not handing out even more, the AFL has forced into action to save our club and i think we should all be able to agree that only good has come out of it for MFC.

A reasonable argument could be made that money sitting in the AFL warchest could have been used to prevent Clubs getting into the trouble they found themselves in.

Clubs like ours fall into dire financial situations that are significantly impacted by interest on debt, rather than the initial sum itself. It the debt had been paid earlier the total amount repaid would be far less.

Of course, you can take this even further and suggest that if Clubs had seen more of the revenue initially, they wouldn't have needed to take on debt in the first place.

  On 16/04/2010 at 05:36, Enforcer25 said:

It would be more disasterous for clubs to spend money irresponsibly and then when they do need a bailout the AFL's pockets are bare.

[...] Obviously there would be a happy medium, but who is to say we are not there now?

I agree that having no money in the kitty would be a significant problem.

However, Clubs drown in what are small amounts of debt relative to the billions in AFL revenues.

Given the amount of money the AFL keeps in the kitty, it's not hard to mount the argument that we're not at the happy medium now.

  On 16/04/2010 at 05:28, Enforcer25 said:

Salient point.

Find a way to make the situation work for you, I agree.

Absolutely.

  On 16/04/2010 at 05:36, Enforcer25 said:

It's a delicate balance.

Any money from the AFL consolidated funds always comes with strings attached.

If the AFL has concerns with any Club administration.....they dont last long as the AFL will pressure change to better operators by the Clubs.

  On 16/04/2010 at 06:05, Rogue said:

It's not clear to me which of my points you disagree with (if any), or what your contention is.

To be clear, I didn't argue that Clubs already receive a slice of the cake that allows them to prosper.

Are you arguing that the AFL doesn't have the means to reasonably provide more of the revenue to the Club?

Are you arguing that the Clubs don't deserve more of the cake?

Are you arguing that the AFL simply doesn't want to give more to the Clubs?

I tried to break my argument down into discrete premises so it'd be easy to reply to

There could be stipulations that the money be spent in particular ways (a la tied grants from the Commonwealth to the States).

THe AFL has enough money to give more the Clubs but choose not to encourage the Clubs to find develop and maintain sustainable business models. Its also good sense for the AFL to increase the breadth of sources of money into the game and not just be single source welfare recipient which feeds off TV rights..

I think the Clubs will always want more regardless of what you give them and there is no happy medium! The Clubs with diversified sources of revenue will still be able gain competitive advantage over Clubs that live hand to mouth of the AFL.

I think there are a couple of problems with this -

  On 16/04/2010 at 06:26, Rhino Richards said:

THe AFL has enough money to give more the Clubs but choose not to encourage the Clubs to find develop and maintain sustainable business models.

Okay, so we seem to agree with regards premise 1 of my argument - that the AFL has significant revenue (and that it's significant enough to operate the comp and fund Clubs etc).

You seem to be separating 'AFL' revenue from revenue earned by the Clubs.

I suggest that a football club's sustainable business model could be, in large part, to participate in an Australian football league and thus create many millions of dollars in revenue by having a national professional league!

My second premise was that the AFL revenue is essentially earned by the competing Clubs. Where do you stand on that?

  On 16/04/2010 at 06:26, Rhino Richards said:

Its also good sense for the AFL to increase the breadth of sources of money into the game and not just be single source welfare recipient which feeds off TV rights..

I think the Clubs will always want more regardless of what you give them and there is no happy medium! The Clubs with diversified sources of revenue will still be able gain competitive advantage over Clubs that live hand to mouth of the AFL.

These two points seem to contradict with one another.

On one hand, you seem to imply that Clubs would be happy to live off TV rights and would not seek out other revenue streams (you seem to be putting aside the fact the AFL itself has revenue streams other than TV, but that's beside the point). However, this is incorrect and your second point explains why.

Your second point states that Clubs with increased revenue gain a competitive advantage. I think your second point is correct, and that's why there would always be motivation for Clubs to seek alternative revenue sources.

I completely agree that it's good business sense to increase the amount and diversity of income streams. Nowhere in my argument is it necessary or even desirable for the diversity of streams to decrease, so if you're implying that it's the case I think you're presenting a strawman.

NB: You also suggest that Clubs that were funded by a reasonable share of the league which exists because they and the other sides compete in it would be living 'hand to mouth', which is IMO a distraction from the issue. (Why would that be 'hand to mouth'? Are people who have a single employer necessarily living 'hand to mouth'?).

  On 16/04/2010 at 06:41, Rogue said:

I think there are a couple of problems with this -

Okay, so we seem to agree with regards premise 1 of my argument - that the AFL has significant revenue (and that it's significant enough to operate the comp and fund Clubs etc).

You seem to be separating 'AFL' revenue from revenue earned by the Clubs.

I suggest that a football club's sustainable business model could be, in large part, to participate in an Australian football league and thus create many millions of dollars in revenue by having a national professional league!

My second premise was that the AFL revenue is essentially earned by the competing Clubs. Where do you stand on that?

Its either nitpicking or semantics which is not going to get far. The AFL revenue is actually earned by the AFL packaging and selling access rights to the licences represented by the Clubs.

  On 16/04/2010 at 06:41, Rogue said:

These two points seem to contradict with one another.

On one hand, you seem to imply that Clubs would be happy to live off TV rights and would not seek out other revenue streams (you seem to be putting aside the fact the AFL itself has revenue streams other than TV, but that's beside the point). However, this is incorrect and your second point explains why.

Your second point states that Clubs with increased revenue gain a competitive advantage. I think your second point is correct, and that's why there would always be motivation for Clubs to seek alternative revenue sources.

No they dont.

I made no implication that the Clubs are happy to live off the TV rights. Some dont have a choice. I think NM, MFC and WB are all keen to do be wealthy clubs but some clubs are unable to achieve that for a number of reasons.

All Clubs understand the motivation to diversify income streams. Some have not or cannot achieve it.

  On 16/04/2010 at 06:41, Rogue said:

I completely agree that it's good business sense to increase the amount and diversity of income streams. Nowhere in my argument is it necessary or even desirable for the diversity of streams to decrease, so if you're implying that it's the case I think you're presenting a strawman.

NB: You also suggest that Clubs that were funded by a reasonable share of the league which exists because they and the other sides compete in it would be living 'hand to mouth', which is IMO a distraction from the issue. (Why would that be 'hand to mouth'? Are people who have a single employer necessarily living 'hand to mouth'?).

I may have misinterpreted your point about prospering on just the share of the AFL revenue and no other sources. At present the AFL allocation to the Clubs is not sufficient to cover the reasonable costs in the AFL. The reference to hand to mouth reflects that the poorer clubs are not profitable and do not have a sustainable business model.

If a persons cost of living is high enough then people who have a single employer or multiple employers may well not have a sufficient income to support the lifestyle or commiitments.

In the AFL the cost of living (ie competing) is getting more expensive each year. If a Clubs revenue is not sufficient covering their costs then they are in essence living beyond their means or living hand to mouth.

  On 16/04/2010 at 12:47, Rhino Richards said:

Its either nitpicking or semantics which is not going to get far. The AFL revenue is actually earned by the AFL packaging and selling access rights to the licences represented by the Clubs.

It's hardly semantics or nitpicking - it's a fundamentally important issue, because if the Clubs are the reason the AFL is getting much of its revenue then they surely deserve a significant amount of the pie, don't they?

However, you seem to disagree with my assertion that the majority of AFL revenue is essentially earned by the professional competition, of which each team makes up (atm) 1/16th.

I'll put it to you that the Clubs - and through them, the players - are the ones putting on the show. If it were the music industry, the AFL's the promoter and the Clubs are the star act.

This analogy ignores the role the AFL plays as the governing body of the sport, and - as I said in my initial post - there are various programs that the AFL do and should be funding.

However, there's a very large pie and the existing Clubs aren't exactly getting a large slice.

  On 16/04/2010 at 12:47, Rhino Richards said:

I made no implication that the Clubs are happy to live off the TV rights. Some dont have a choice. I think NM, MFC and WB are all keen to do be wealthy clubs but some clubs are unable to achieve that for a number of reasons.

you seem to suggest that the Clubs would not bother seeking alternative sources of revenue if they were given a larger share of the pie:

  Quote

THe AFL has enough money to give more the Clubs but choose not to encourage the Clubs to find develop and maintain sustainable business models.

However, you state that the AFL chooses not to give the Clubs more in revenue in order to encourage (coerce?) them to bring in other revenue ('sustainable business models').

You go on to state that it makes sense for the AFL to increase the diversity of revenue streams, which seems to imply that this would not be the case if the Clubs could cover costs with revenue they earn via their participation in the competition that garners TV rights money etc.

(An alternative could be that you're just talking about the AFL increasing revenue sources, but they already do that with various sponsorships, corporate packages, and there's no reason they'd stop doing that if they gave a bigger share to the Clubs (in fact, the opposite may be true) so that doesn't seem to make any sense.)

  Quote

The Clubs with diversified sources of revenue will still be able gain competitive advantage over Clubs that live hand to mouth of the AFL.

...and this is the reason that the Clubs would not simply be happy to take a bigger share of revenue generated by the competition as a whole - competiton TV rights, sponsorships, etc - and not generate their own income.

Every Club is attempting to get or increase their competitive advantage, no matter how much revenue they have.

The motivation to increase revenue streams doesn't go away if you get a larger share of the competition revenue.

  Quote

I may have misinterpreted your point about prospering on just the share of the AFL revenue and no other sources. At present the AFL allocation to the Clubs is not sufficient to cover the reasonable costs in the AFL. The reference to hand to mouth reflects that the poorer clubs are not profitable and do not have a sustainable business model.

If a persons cost of living is high enough then people who have a single employer or multiple employers may well not have a sufficient income to support the lifestyle or commiitments.

In the AFL the cost of living (ie competing) is getting more expensive each year. If a Clubs revenue is not sufficient covering their costs then they are in essence living beyond their means or living hand to mouth.

I know what 'hand to mouth' means, I simply can't understand why you'd throw out the cliche - I'm certainly not suggesting they should (or would) live 'hand to mouth'.

Clubs would not be living hand-to-mouth if they received a greater percentage of the competition revenues, of which they make up (atm) 1/16th each.

Bottom line - the next TV rights alone, let alone other AFL revenues, are being mooted to provide up to $200M p/year, and yet we're talking about Clubs in dire trouble with relatively small losses or debts!

Oh, and the struggling Clubs typically get a financially pathetic fixture - with significant impact on sponsorships, corporate packages and gate takings - and are then slammed because their 'business models' aren't as 'sustainable' as the Clubs that receive a fixture with significant financial benefits.

What would it take to provide financial security - and, dare I say it, some fairness - to Clubs? Less than 5% of TV rights (not AFL revenue, just TV rights!) p/year, distributed based on a model that took into account the [financial] inequity of the draw?

To put it into perspective, the AFL has pledged $100M to GWS, and I imagine that doesn't take into account the various NSW marketing and grassroots programs that will indirectly benefit GWS.

This was posted by a friend of mine on a different forum when I (mistakenly) raised the same points.

  Quote

Looked at Hawks and Nths Fin reports to get a general idea of AFL distributions, North listed 6,610,752 from "AFL distributions". Hawks had 7.4mil (rough, could be bothered copying their exact number) for "AFL distributions and Prize money" You would assume every team gets the 6.6mil and the extra 800 the hawks got was from winning the flag.

So, 700mil/5years= 120mil per year

6,610,752x16(number of clubs)= $105,772,032

So that leaves 14.3mil + radio money + proportion of gates each year to run the AFL each year as well as distributions to WAFL/VFL/SANFL etc. Seems pretty reasonable to me

EDIT: https://www.afl.com.au/Portals/0/afl_docs/afl_hq/annual_reports/2007/ConciseFinancial.pdf

Thats the AFL's fin report for 2007, page 12 shows the balance sheet from 1998-2007. It roughly shows that for 2007(in millions):

"Revenue= $284.794

Operating Expenses= $81.047

Interest Expense= $1.272

Operating Surplus= $202.475

Payments to Clubs= $125.488

Payments to AFLPA= $12.131

Game Development Grants= $25.852

Ground Improvements= $4.951

(I've omitted about 10 lines of what I deem purely financial talk revenues/deficits)

Net Surplus/(Deficit)= $5.222mil"

So in closing your all right, the AFL is an evil corporation and the $125 mil they paid to clubs and the $12mil they paid the the Players Association proves this. Bastards.

NOTE: Massive props to AFL.com.au from making this information so readily available

As much as I hate it the AFL are not the evil buggers we think they are.

  On 16/04/2010 at 15:03, Rogue said:

However, there's a very large pie and the existing Clubs aren't exactly getting a large slice.

And I dont think the giving the Clubs a large slice will necessarily make the competition more even or make the poor Clubs morre viable. As it risks funding the raise of the bar by all Clubs.

  On 16/04/2010 at 15:03, Rogue said:

you seem to suggest that the Clubs would not bother seeking alternative sources of revenue if they were given a larger share of the pie:

I have dealt with with this and thats clearly not what I have proposed

  On 16/04/2010 at 15:03, Rogue said:

However, you state that the AFL chooses not to give the Clubs more in revenue in order to encourage (coerce?) them to bring in other revenue ('sustainable business models').

You go on to state that it makes sense for the AFL to increase the diversity of revenue streams, which seems to imply that this would not be the case if the Clubs could cover costs with revenue they earn via their participation in the competition that garners TV rights money etc.

Once again your drawing an inference that was not made.

  On 16/04/2010 at 15:03, Rogue said:

(An alternative could be that you're just talking about the AFL increasing revenue sources, but they already do that with various sponsorships, corporate packages, and there's no reason they'd stop doing that if they gave a bigger share to the Clubs (in fact, the opposite may be true) so that doesn't seem to make any sense.)

...and this is the reason that the Clubs would not simply be happy to take a bigger share of revenue generated by the competition as a whole - competiton TV rights, sponsorships, etc - and not generate their own income.

Every Club is attempting to get or increase their competitive advantage, no matter how much revenue they have.

The motivation to increase revenue streams doesn't go away if you get a larger share of the competition revenue.

I know what 'hand to mouth' means, I simply can't understand why you'd throw out the cliche - I'm certainly not suggesting they should (or would) live 'hand to mouth'.

Clubs would not be living hand-to-mouth if they received a greater percentage of the competition revenues, of which they make up (atm) 1/16th each.

I made it clear that hand to mouth made reference to unprofitable business model of some clubs. I am sorry you dont like but it adequately describes the debt demolition and tin rattle antics of poorer clubs.Its not a matter of should would or could. The fact is they are. Beyond their annual sources of revenue, clubs like MFC and NM have no funds to invest in the infrastructure of the business (eg facilities, medical resources etc)

The AFL is supposedly there to act in the best interests of the promotion of the competition (and its not just the Clubs).

I am not sure that AFL necessarily should just give out unrestricted more money to all clubs as it just means the cost of competing will go up. The rich clubs remain rich, the poor clubs remain poor.

  On 16/04/2010 at 15:03, Rogue said:

Bottom line - the next TV rights alone, let alone other AFL revenues, are being mooted to provide up to $200M p/year, and yet we're talking about Clubs in dire trouble with relatively small losses or debts!

Oh, and the struggling Clubs typically get a financially pathetic fixture - with significant impact on sponsorships, corporate packages and gate takings - and are then slammed because their 'business models' aren't as 'sustainable' as the Clubs that receive a fixture with significant financial benefits.

What would it take to provide financial security - and, dare I say it, some fairness - to Clubs? Less than 5% of TV rights (not AFL revenue, just TV rights!) p/year, distributed based on a model that took into account the [financial] inequity of the draw?

To put it into perspective, the AFL has pledged $100M to GWS, and I imagine that doesn't take into account the various NSW marketing and grassroots programs that will indirectly benefit GWS.

Changing the fixtures to a conceptual even playing field with all teams getting the same amount of air time and access to even fixtures will potentially dull the value of TV and potentially reduce the overall flow of income from other sources. (eg fewer people will want to watch NM as opposed to Collingwood etc) Some of the poorer clubs have less propensity to generate income that would be more than foregone if the AFL does not seek to promote its leading brands.

Weighting on some metric of the impact of fixturing on Clubs is a idea to pursue and I wonder if the AFL has already done so.

Financial Security for some poorer Clubs is the development of a sustainable business model which they have struggled with in the past and will struggle with going forward.

Your comment on NSW is interesting and reflects the longer term interests of the AFL to expand the Code in Northern States. I suggest the amounts you suggested will utlimately be eclipsed in the medium to long term by all the other costs you reference. I think the AFL has an eye on the complete nationalisation of the Code and a focussing funds to those longer term goals than increasing the clip to each Club.

  On 16/04/2010 at 22:53, Rhino Richards said:

And I dont think the giving the Clubs a large slice will necessarily make the competition more even or make the poor Clubs morre viable. As it risks funding the raise of the bar by all Clubs.

You suggest that Clubs need 'sustainable' business models, which I assume is a nice way of saying they need more money, whether that be through membership revenue, gate takings, sponsorship, and non-footy related streams. A larger slice of the competition pie gives them more money - what difference does the source of that money make?

Even excluding the Clubs that struggle to be viable in the current market, the 'bar' is already far higher for the richest Clubs than it is others. However, that doesn't mean all other Clubs are hitting the wall - they simply don't have some of the luxuries that a Collingwood has. Spending may increase, but after a certain point your spending is on non-essentials.

  On 16/04/2010 at 22:53, Rhino Richards said:

I made it clear that hand to mouth made reference to unprofitable business model of some clubs. I am sorry you dont like but it adequately describes the debt demolition and tin rattle antics of poorer clubs.Its not a matter of should would or could. The fact is they are. Beyond their annual sources of revenue, clubs like MFC and NM have no funds to invest in the infrastructure of the business (eg facilities, medical resources etc)

In a discussion on the merits of my contention this is irrelevant. No one - certainly not I, anyway - are suggesting all Clubs are 'sustainable' now...if they were, we wouldn't be having this discussion!

  On 16/04/2010 at 22:53, Rhino Richards said:

The AFL is supposedly there to act in the best interests of the promotion of the competition (and its not just the Clubs).

I am not sure that AFL necessarily should just give out unrestricted more money to all clubs as it just means the cost of competing will go up. The rich clubs remain rich, the poor clubs remain poor.

This seems like another strawman. My contention is suggesting all the money from the professional competition go to the Clubs.

  On 16/04/2010 at 22:53, Rhino Richards said:

Changing the fixtures to a conceptual even playing field with all teams getting the same amount of air time and access to even fixtures will potentially dull the value of TV and potentially reduce the overall flow of income from other sources. (eg fewer people will want to watch NM as opposed to Collingwood etc) Some of the poorer clubs have less propensity to generate income that would be more than foregone if the AFL does not seek to promote its leading brands.

Another strawman? My contention is not that the AFL provide equity in the fixturing process (rather, that it recognise the financial inequalities inherent in the current approach to fixturing).

  On 16/04/2010 at 22:53, Rhino Richards said:

Your comment on NSW is interesting and reflects the longer term interests of the AFL to expand the Code in Northern States. I suggest the amounts you suggested will utlimately be eclipsed in the medium to long term by all the other costs you reference. I think the AFL has an eye on the complete nationalisation of the Code and a focussing funds to those longer term goals than increasing the clip to each Club.

The fact that GWS will eat up far more than the pledge of $100 million I referenced is something we agree on. This again puts in stark perspective the relatively small amount of sums that are forcing existing teams to the wall.

  On 16/04/2010 at 22:53, Rhino Richards said:

Financial Security for some poorer Clubs is the development of a sustainable business model which they have struggled with in the past and will struggle with going forward.

First, every argument you've raised about poor Clubs still being poor, and increased revenue driving up costs, applies to whatever 'sustainable business model' you advocate, regardless of whether it includes a larger piece of the competition pie.

Second, increased revenue from participating in the AFL competition - a larger share of the revenue that the teams, as 1/16th of the competition that generates AFL profit - would create that 'sustainable business model'!

^Ten points to anyone who actually reads all that.

  On 17/04/2010 at 05:30, Chook said:

Ten points to anyone who actually reads all that.

^^ I Think it's a private chat! would be the most ever written about North Melbourne in their entire history!!! B)

  On 17/04/2010 at 07:02, why you little said:

^^ I Think it's a private chat! would be the most ever written about North Melbourne in their entire history!!! B)

It's not about North Melbourne, it's about whether Clubs should get a bigger piece of the pie.

We're a Club that could do with more of the pie, given our financial predicament, so it's pretty relevant to our interests...I don't have a particular interest in North, per se

Btw, what can I redeem with this 10 points?

I remember someone saying Carlton receives more payouts from the AFL than we do.

Is anyone sure of this? How could this be possible..?

  On 17/04/2010 at 07:26, Rogue said:

It's not about North Melbourne, it's about whether Clubs should get a bigger piece of the pie.

We're a Club that could do with more of the pie, given our financial predicament, so it's pretty relevant to our interests...I don't have a particular interest in North, per se

Btw, what can I redeem with this 10 points?

Bupkus. Sorry. But ten points is better than zero.

  On 17/04/2010 at 07:26, Rogue said:

It's not about North Melbourne, it's about whether Clubs should get a bigger piece of the pie.

We're a Club that could do with more of the pie, given our financial predicament, so it's pretty relevant to our interests...I don't have a particular interest in North, per se

Btw, what can I redeem with this 10 points?

I think some clubs deserve more exposure, thus we could generate more potential wealth, but as far as larger pieces of the AFL pie. I don't think that may help-most clubs would just blow the money..the poor clubs would remain that and the rich ones get fatter.

i like the way AFL pay outs are hard to get, means the money is now well used (in most cases) In the 80's clubs had bugger all financial caring-that's why the VFL was almost broke when oakley took over.

  On 17/04/2010 at 07:49, Chook said:

Bupkus. Sorry. But ten points is better than zero.

...and to think I had my hopes up!

  On 17/04/2010 at 07:55, why you little said:

as far as larger pieces of the AFL pie. I don't think that may help-most clubs would just blow the money..

If that was your concern then the money could come with strings attached - and lets be realistic, it inevitably would!. If you wanted to take that a step further, the AFL could directly fund particular operations, TPPs, etc. There are various safeguards you could apply.

  On 17/04/2010 at 07:55, why you little said:

I think some clubs deserve more exposure, thus we could generate more potential wealth

As RR pointed out, there are various reasons why that isn't likely or even necessarily preferable. In short, it may lead to reduced revenue from TV, sponsors, corporates and the gate, but of course you might think that matters less than distributing exposure more fairly.

However, acknowledgement of the financial disadvantage suffered by those Clubs that get a 'financially poor' fixture, and financial compensation for that, would go a long way.

  On 17/04/2010 at 13:57, Rogue said:

If that was your concern then the money could come with strings attached - and lets be realistic, it inevitably would!. If you wanted to take that a step further, the AFL could directly fund particular operations, TPPs, etc. There are various safeguards you could apply.

As RR pointed out, there are various reasons why that isn't a) likely or B) necessarily preferable. However, acknowledgement of the financial disadvantage suffered by those Clubs that get a 'financially poor' fixture, and financial compensation for that, would go a long way.

I think the AFL does have various strings attached, as in a good business plan with a well run club. After Gardiner & co left we very nearly did not get anymore funding as our book keeping and general running was in such bad shape-not blaming anyone but that is what happened.

As far as exposure in terms of MFC i suspect we could be quite a large player in this state if success comes our way, but as none of us have experienced it yet for nigh on 50 years, we shall have to wait and see.

I know heaps of Dormant MFC Supporters, If we make a September series my phone will be running hot. It happened in 2000, it will happen again.