I always have this question in my mind because, I see NBA, NFL, MLB and EPL have owners that own their franchises but in AFL it's different than that, and i think for a club that has great history like demons, we can have the richest guy in Australia owning our club and be much powerful force than we are right now.

We just don't have a culture of it in the AFL. North tried it, but it didn't work. Owners in the US are about making money, not necessarily winning, if Melbourne was privately owned we would probably be the Greater Western Sydney Demons and Phil Scully would be our head of recruiting.

We just don't have a culture of it in the AFL. North tried it, but it didn't work. Owners in the US are about making money, not necessarily winning, if Melbourne was privately owned we would probably be the Greater Western Sydney Demons and Phil Scully would be our head of recruiting.

But if we combined the US concept of club ownership with the Australian idea of died-in-the-wool support, it could be an interesting concept.

We just don't have a culture of it in the AFL. North tried it, but it didn't work. Owners in the US are about making money, not necessarily winning, if Melbourne was privately owned we would probably be the Greater Western Sydney Demons and Phil Scully would be our head of recruiting.

Agree. Our comp would be like the EPL with 4 clubs capable of winning the flag and the rest filling up the cable TV schedule.

Won't happen here. The AFL formed the commission back in the 80's which owns all the intellectual property associated with the clubs including logos, colors, jumpers, competition etc. Smartest thing they ever did.

Their experience with Edelsten and Nth Melbourne was the wake up call. Debacle.

The comp has gone from strength to strength and they are so far ahead of any other sport in australia it's not funny.

If AFL clubs became franchises then there will be nothing stopping owners moving the club to where they could make more money. Happens on a regualr basis in sports like the NFL.

No effing way.

The US way of ownership is archaic and self-defeating.

The best ones stay within their budgets and never win anything, the good ones pay over the odds and leverage their own franchise and win stuff, the bad ones leverage their club and don't win anything, and the worst ones use it as a money-making exercise and never look to win anything.

The best run club that constantly wins and gets good profits is the Green Bay Packers in the NFL - and guess what? They are owned by members of the commuity in Wisconsin and funnel the profits back into the club and the community.

Needless to say it is harder for that type of 'socialism' to be handled so it is legislated that that is not allowed anymore...

Anyway, point: leave it the way it is or lose the soul of footy.

God help us if we have any more Edelstens and Skases running football clubs. It's bad enough now with the AFL acting as quasi private owner of the Bleaktown operation.

Private ownership of telephone, power and gas companies hasn't exactly been a raging success in this country - from my experience some are completely dysfunctional (mind you local government's in a mess and that's in public hands).

No, the last thing we want is for some millionaire to take over a football club and treat it like his own private fiefdom.

Never.

The best run club that constantly wins and gets good profits is the Green Bay Packers in the NFL - and guess what? They are owned by members of the commuity in Wisconsin and funnel the profits back into the club and the community.

Yep , at last count the Packers had about 112,000 part owners . Remarkable really , considering the size of Green Bay .

Barcelona are another Club wholly owned by their fans - I support both Clubs mainly for this reason .

Barca even "Paid" Unicef for the advertising on the front of their top . That 5 year deal is over now but I reckon they'll do something similar again in the future .

Edited December 10, 201113 yr by Macca

Want to know the dark side of that side of ownership? Ask Leeds United. Powerhouse of club football in early 2000s, missed Champions League, went bust, owner walked out, collapsed to 3rd tier of English football and have only recently started recovering.

Or Portsmouth, whose club was sold to a succession of persons closely associated with an arms dealer, then subsequently sold to a fraud.

OMG!! Just what we need. Private ownership of AFL clubs...not.

Soon as anyone goes Bust, and they. Football team is the first thing tossed out.

The Gunners stay near the Top with members.

Not supporting privately owned clubs but just quoting privately owned clubs that got into difficulties proves nothing in itself. Plenty of publicly owned clubs have got into just as many difficulties and in fact many have disappeared off the face of this world

However I would hate to see the American or UK private franchise system in the AFL

If we had been a privately owned club and given our recent record there would have been a very good chance we would be GWS by now.

If we had been a privately owned club and given our recent record there would have been a very good chance we would be GWS by now.

I doubt that... GWS is way to much a risk......It would be a poor business move....Tassie or the N.T. maybe, GWS no-way....

If we had been a privately owned club and given our recent record there would have been a very good chance we would be GWS by now.

Gutted

Wasted &

Sucked Dry

GWS

The comparison of AFL to EPL is ridiculous, the wealthier clubs in the EPL will always have success because they is no salary cap, meaning the clubs with the most money can pay the players more. I like the comparison the the NFL, however it could never be the same with the bulk of the AFL being from a single city. However another one of the biggest cities in the USA, LA, doesn't have a franchise. The only city that has multiple teams in the NFL is New York, with the Giants and Jets, who surprisingly share a stadium. I like the idea of of private owners, but can't see it happening in Australia. Unless there are team owners who can get attendances in small cities, like your Jacksonville Jaguars, who just were sold for US$660 million, Green Bay is a great example, Tampa Bay another city that most would not have heard of, St Louis the 58th most populated city in the USA. Point is for a team to be profitable, and therefore appealing, to wealth businessmen is to get good attendances to games from smaller cities.

The comparison of AFL to EPL is ridiculous, the wealthier clubs in the EPL will always have success because they is no salary cap, meaning the clubs with the most money can pay the players more. I like the comparison the the NFL, however it could never be the same with the bulk of the AFL being from a single city. However another one of the biggest cities in the USA, LA, doesn't have a franchise. The only city that has multiple teams in the NFL is New York, with the Giants and Jets, who surprisingly share a stadium. I like the idea of of private owners, but can't see it happening in Australia. Unless there are team owners who can get attendances in small cities, like your Jacksonville Jaguars, who just were sold for US$660 million, Green Bay is a great example, Tampa Bay another city that most would not have heard of, St Louis the 58th most populated city in the USA. Point is for a team to be profitable, and therefore appealing, to wealth businessmen is to get good attendances to games from smaller cities.

Be good if we had some opinions from some fans of the Baltimore Colts, St Louis Cardinals, Oakland/LA Raiders, LA Rams Cleveland Browns and Houston Oilers on what they think of private ownership.

For a hypothetical, let's say Tony Mokbel owned us and Vlad offered him 50 million to pioneer the GWS franchise five years ago. Where do you think we would be now?

Be good if we had some opinions from some fans of the Baltimore Colts, St Louis Cardinals, Oakland/LA Raiders, LA Rams Cleveland Browns and Houston Oilers on what they think of private ownership.

For a hypothetical, let's say Tony Mokbel owned us and Vlad offered him 50 million to pioneer the GWS franchise five years ago. Where do you think we would be now?

Ha! ha!

We would be faint in most people's memories.

Or, playing 4 home games out of Ballarat, 4 out of Broome and 4 out of Dundedin. Go the Dunedin Demons!

Be good if we had some opinions from some fans of the Baltimore Colts, St Louis Cardinals, Oakland/LA Raiders, LA Rams Cleveland Browns and Houston Oilers on what they think of private ownership.

For a hypothetical, let's say Tony Mokbel owned us and Vlad offered him 50 million to pioneer the GWS franchise five years ago. Where do you think we would be now?

What if these franchises had stayed in theses cities? They would end up like North Melbourne and where the demons were a short time ago.

In all honesty, what private owner would want to own a franchise in Greater Western Sydney. The private owners would go to places where they could around 25000 people to every game, given the population of Australia this can't be too high.

What if these franchises had stayed in theses cities? They would end up like North Melbourne and where the demons were a short time ago.

In all honesty, what private owner would want to own a franchise in Greater Western Sydney. The private owners would go to places where they could around 25000 people to every game, given the population of Australia this can't be too high.

The main reason why many of those franchise moved was that they could get better deals elsewhere. They were offered more money and lucrative stadium deals to move. Massive TV rights for the NFL virtually guarantees a stable income for all clubs. Most of the moves were made with greed as the primary motive and left many loyal fans high and dry.

A private owner would love to own a GWS style franchise. They could bleed the AFL coffers for decades. Look at all the money that has been poured in already and the wanton waste as seen with the Scully family deals.

Edited December 12, 201113 yr by Jackie