How much did the AFL bankroll the GWS

[demonique 314]

I have probably missed this info but "How much was GWS given to set this enterprise up with?

They seem to have a bottomless pit of loot to get whoever they want!! and to [censored] everybody off to boot!!

[baysidedave 246]

who knows exact amounts but it will be up to 100 million after about 4-5 years, they've got 9 million to spend on players in the first year

[Hip & Shoulder 64]

Don't forget the MFC is part of the AFL so we're effectively contributing to their coffers.

[jayceebee31 692]

plenty

[Jack Jack 415]

plenty

What's that in desks?

[DeeSpencer 23,563]

Remember that for the Melbourne salary cap we pay about 6 rookies 40k a year and 4 national draft picks 60k. Everyone else (even the most mediocre of senior players) are getting 200k plus often.

GWS will have 30 odd players on 60k a year and they have a larger salary cap. The net effect of this means in their first couple of years they can offer pretty much whatever. So these massive contracts are hugely front ended. For example if Ward is getting 800k a year for 5 years or whatever they can pretty much pay him a huge chunk of that in his first 2 years. Which is another benefit of the big contract, because I bet almost as soon as he gets paid that he can invest it (probably in a couple of nice Sydney houses) and all of a sudden he's set for life.

[RalphiusMaximus 5,994]

Remember that for the Melbourne salary cap we pay about 6 rookies 40k a year and 4 national draft picks 60k. Everyone else (even the most mediocre of senior players) are getting 200k plus often.

GWS will have 30 odd players on 60k a year and they have a larger salary cap. The net effect of this means in their first couple of years they can offer pretty much whatever. So these massive contracts are hugely front ended. For example if Ward is getting 800k a year for 5 years or whatever they can pretty much pay him a huge chunk of that in his first 2 years. Which is another benefit of the big contract, because I bet almost as soon as he gets paid that he can invest it (probably in a couple of nice Sydney houses) and all of a sudden he's set for life.

I've been thinking about that. If a player wanted to be a little conniving, he could take the GWS offer this year, cash in on the massively front-ended contract (say 1.5 mil in the first year?) and after a year or so come up with homesickness, illness in the family or whatever and ask to be traded back to their home state (lets say Victoria). Any club taking them would have to honour their contract, but that's not an issue because it was so heavily front ended that they are only going to be getting 300k or so for the next three years. Obviously GWS would be in their rights to refuse to trade such a player, but it would be terrible publicity for them and they may find themselves having to delist them and pay out the contract anyway when their form drops and they show discipline issues.

Sound like a winner?

[old dee 23,117]

What's that in desks?

like it a lot JJ

[beelzebub 22,542]

bottomless pit sums it up !!

[Little Goffy 12,836]

I can confirm what baysidedave said - The 'base estimate', from the AFL HQ, was $100m at maximum of $20m a year.

So, yeeeah. It better work.

[Sir Why You Little 35,167]

The AFL will bankroll this farce for decades....long after i am gone that's for sure!!

[H_T 2,941]

113 desks

[rpfc 27,660]

Does the OP mean in terms of salary cap?

If so, they get an extra million to comes back to the same cap as the comp in 5 years - getting less and less every year.

They will be heavily frontended - just like us.

[praha 10,451]

Put it this way:

Scully will get $1 million a year

A car

A stunning house on the harbour

God knows what else

At Melbourne he will get:

$500-600k a year

Some neat little deals with some local businesses

...

That's it.

Ba-bye! Take that jumped off your back!

[Guest Thomo]

Don't forget the MFC is part of the AFL so we're effectively contributing to their coffers.

Glass houses.....

It is more likely that the interstate clubs are bankrolling the small Victorian Clubs

Melbourne would be a negative contributor to the AFL. If Melbourne merged or dropped out of the competition and were replaced by an interstate team the AFL would be better off financially. Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton, West coast, Adelaide, Sydney, Brisbane would all be contributing to Melbourne’s coffers though gate receipts and media income. The TV rights is a massive income stream, and there is no way it would be anywhere near one billion dollars if it was a Victorian based competition.

The same arguments about bankrolling GWS were made about Sydney and Brisbane.

[1858 259]

Melbourne would be a negative contributor to the AFL.

Wow, I don't necessarily disagree with that but I don't know how you could quantify such a notion without an in depth analysis. How do we even quantify the significance of MFC as 1 of 18 clubs (ie 9 games per round) which is critical to the latest tv rights deal?

If Melbourne merged or dropped out of the competition and were replaced by an interstate team the AFL would be better off financially.

Are you talking from a tv rights perspective or are you suggesting any old "interstate team" if it entered the comp would be more self sufficient and have a more successful profit model as a club?

[jnrmac 19,397]

The real question is how much more will they throw at it when Sheedy & Co stuff it up??

[baysidedave 246]

Put it this way:

Scully will get $1 million a year

A car

A stunning house on the harbour

God knows what else

At Melbourne he will get:

$500-600k a year

Some neat little deals with some local businesses

...

That's it.

Ba-bye! Take that jumped off your back!

I doubt if he will be living on the Harbour because it would take him 90 minutes to get to training etc

[Guest Thomo]

Wow, I don't necessarily disagree with that but I don't know how you could quantify such a notion without an in depth analysis. How do we even quantify the significance of MFC as 1 of 18 clubs (ie 9 games per round) which is critical to the latest tv rights deal?

Are you talking from a tv rights perspective or are you suggesting any old "interstate team" if it entered the comp would be more self sufficient and have a more successful profit model as a club?

1/ The fact that the AFL have been trying to merge and relocate the smaller teams out of Melbourne for the last thirty years backs this up. They have done the in depth analysis.

2/ Moving a team to Tassie is not going to have much of an effect on revenue as the state is already saturated with AFL. Moving into new markets in NSW and Qld increases potential TV audience, sponsorship, merchandise from the growth in new markets the potential market and will result in greater revenue for the AFL.

Would the AFL be able to command over $1b for the rights if Fitzroy and South Melbourne stayed in Victoria? No chance.

[Guest Thomo]

I doubt if he will be living on the Harbour because it would take him 90 minutes to get to training etc

I drove from North Sydney to Blacktown at at 9am last week and it took me 40 minutes. How long does it take to get from AAMI to Casey Fields>

[1858 259]

1/ The fact that the AFL have been trying to merge and relocate the smaller teams out of Melbourne for the last thirty years backs this up. They have done the in depth analysis.

Painting all "small clubs" with the same brush based on the last 30 years serves no purpose in the context of the latest billion dollar tv rights deal IMO.

2/ Moving a team to Tassie is not going to have much of an effect on revenue as the state is already saturated with AFL. Moving into new markets in NSW and Qld increases potential TV audience, sponsorship, merchandise from the growth in new markets the potential market and will result in greater revenue for the AFL.

Ok, so you've moved from "an interstate team" to "new markets in NSW and QLD". I think it's fair to say that new teams in SA, TAS, NT, ACT and probably WA are not feasible in the short term so that restrics your generalistic comment there. A relocation to Tassie may work in the not too distant future though.

Assuming that you purely had NSW or QLD in mind when you made that statement, given that we already are expanding in QLD and NSW now via GC and GWS what you are ultimately suggesting is that it would be more financially viable for the AFL to have MFC fold now and start up either a 3rd QLD or 3rd NSW AFL team.

Have you put even a remote amount of thought into how long it would take for a 3rd QLD or a 3rd NSW team to be viable let alone self sufficient and how much long term investment it would take from the AFL given the money being pumped into GC and GWS?

I'm not arguing against the idea of new markets opening up new revenue sources but the further the AFL expands the more money it has to put into manufacturing those markets. The AFL can't grow any faster than what it already is for multiple reasons, the main one being cost and sustainability.

All of a sudden what was a blitzkrieg (SA, WA, Sydney, Brisbane) has come down to trench warfare. Winning over GWS and expanding GC will take a lot of time and money.

So we come back to your initial statement: "If Melbourne merged or dropped out of the competition and were replaced by an interstate team the AFL would be better off financially." This is such a willy nilly statement simply due to how unpractical it is for the AFL to expand into new markets faster than it already is.

Melbourne is part of a 18 team competition which is pivotal to the rights deal along with the new markets which can only grow organically over time, not just be plucked out of thin air. The AFL knows this.

Would the AFL be able to command over $1b for the rights if Fitzroy and South Melbourne stayed in Victoria? No chance.

Not much of a revelation there, I doubt anyone would disagree with that. It has no bearing on the practical aspects of your previous comments though.

[H_T 2,941]

I have a question concerning GWS's uncontracted players. Just for clarification.

GWS have access to 16 uncontracted players (one from each of the existing AFL clubs minus GC) over the two year period. Correct ?

So far they have signed: -

Scully (Melb)

Ward (Dogs)

Palmer (Frem)

Davis (Adel)

Do the retired ones Power (Bris), Cornes (Port), Brogan (Port) count as uncontracted players from those club(s) ? ie. Is Brisbane struck off the list and protected from a raid in 2012 ? Is Port protected in 2012 ?

Are the rulings that they may take "up to" 16 uncontracted players or must they take one uncontracted player from each club ?

ie. Does this mean they still must take a further 12 uncontracted players ?

Or is there every chance a AFL club or some AFL clubs may not be raided ?

[Guest Jack Donaghy]

I have a question concerning GWS's uncontracted players. Just for clarification.

GWS have access to 16 uncontracted players (one from each of the existing AFL clubs minus GC) over the two year period. Correct ?

So far they have signed: -

Scully (Melb)

Ward (Dogs)

Palmer (Frem)

Davis (Adel)

Do the retired ones Power (Bris), Cornes (Port), Brogan (Port) count as uncontracted players from those club(s) ? ie. Is Brisbane struck off the list and protected from a raid in 2012 ? Is Port protected in 2012 ?

Are the rulings that they may take "up to" 16 uncontracted players or must they take one uncontracted player from each club ?

ie. Does this mean they still must take a further 12 uncontracted players ?

Or is there every chance a AFL club or some AFL clubs may not be raided ?

Not MUST, but MAY.

Power, Cornes and Borgan are a bit of a grey area, relating to delisted players.

GWS can sign any delisted players if they so choose, to my knowledge, and it won't count as an out-of-contract signing (not sure if they can just sign them outright, or if they need to select them in the PSD).

Meaning no compo from the teams they have left, and they can still pinch one from under the noses of those clubs.

Obviously Cornes and Brogan both come from Port anyway.

So if we are to find no takers for Warnock, Bate, Dunn, Maric, etc. and delist them, GWS are free to pick them up - they do not need to formulate a trade with us.

[Seinfeld 40]

The AFL are not really bankrolling GWS....

The only reason the TV rights deal was so high is because of the the 2 extra teams and the extra game per week.

If GWS and GCS did not exist then the TV rights deal would have been less.

Edited September 14, 2011 by Kojak

[beelzebub 22,542]

The AFL are not really bankrolling GWS....

The only reason the TV rights deal was so high is because of the the 2 extra teams and the extra game per week.

If GWS and GCS did not exist then the TV rights deal would have been less.

and God didnt make little Green Apples...

yes. Mr Lollipop....the AFL ARE bankrolling GWS..

open cheque book