In light of the MFC getting more funding from the AFL earlier this year to fund The Great Cleanout of 2013, and the issue with Essendon's possible loss of part of its base payments I will list who got what in the last two years.

There are too many people who do not know that every club is funded from AFL House, to the point that if they didn't all clubs would go under.

This is from the AFL's Annual Reports. I have highlighted the lowest and the highest numbers in each year.

2011 ($)

Adelaide 7,882,810

Brisbane Lions 9,539,612

Carlton 10,005,058

Collingwood 10,472,551

Essendon 9,995,099

Fremantle 8,056,370

Geelong 9,704,292

Gold Coast 7,864,234

Hawthorn 8,689,212

Melbourne 9,239,301

North Melbourne 10,111,072

Port Adelaide 11,021,514

Richmond 9,092,489

St Kilda 9,192,204

Sydney Swans 9,129,034

West Coast Eagles 8,461,483

Western Bulldogs 10,409,935

2012($)

Adelaide 10,270,406

Brisbane 10,783,001

Carlton 10,870,010

Collingwood 12,535,189

Essendon 11,980,149

Fremantle 9,337,414

Geelong 11,135,334

Gold Coast 9,352,117

Greater Western Sydney 9,343,512

Hawthorn 10,636,732

Melbourne 12,650,732

North Melbourne 12,319,940

Port Adelaide 11,138,943

Richmond 11,545,320

St Kilda 12,502,276

Sydney 11,916,038

West Coast 9,229,523

Western Bulldogs 12,704,635

hmmm

gws and gcs figures are very low

they must be getting money from another "bucket" also

can you see any other relevant categories in the ar?

Would love to know what the average per season is for the past 5 & 10 years.

In light of the MFC getting more funding from the AFL earlier this year to fund The Great Cleanout of 2013, and the issue with Essendon's possible loss of part of its base payments I will list who got what in the last two years.

There are too many people who do not know that every club is funded from AFL House, to the point that if they didn't all clubs would go under.

This is from the AFL's Annual Reports. I have highlighted the lowest and the highest numbers in each year.

2011 ($)

Adelaide 7,882,810

Brisbane Lions 9,539,612

Carlton 10,005,058

Collingwood 10,472,551

Essendon 9,995,099

Fremantle 8,056,370

Geelong 9,704,292

Gold Coast 7,864,234

Hawthorn 8,689,212

Melbourne 9,239,301

North Melbourne 10,111,072

Port Adelaide 11,021,514

Richmond 9,092,489

St Kilda 9,192,204

Sydney Swans 9,129,034

West Coast Eagles 8,461,483

Western Bulldogs 10,409,935

2012($)

Adelaide 10,270,406

Brisbane 10,783,001

Carlton 10,870,010

Collingwood 12,535,189

Essendon 11,980,149

Fremantle 9,337,414

Geelong 11,135,334

Gold Coast 9,352,117

Greater Western Sydney 9,343,512

Hawthorn 10,636,732

Melbourne 12,650,732

North Melbourne 12,319,940

Port Adelaide 11,138,943

Richmond 11,545,320

St Kilda 12,502,276

Sydney 11,916,038

West Coast 9,229,523

Western Bulldogs 12,704,635

It would be more interesting to know how the amount is calculated and what it includes and what it doesn't. Is this the only funding clubs get?

I don't know. I don't really care but if the figures are there they mean little without knowing what they represent.

That is ALL the payments to clubs.

The base was $6.76m to all clubs and then at least an extra $1.2m each from the TV rights with further funding (very complex) on top of that:

Payments to clubs

The AFL makes a number of different

distributions and payments to AFL clubs.

These payments included the following

in 2012:

>>A base distribution to all clubs which

totalled $121.6 million, an increase of

$16.5 million.

>>A bonus distribution of $1.2 million to all

clubs from the broadcast rights proceeds.

>>The AFL distributed equal and disequal

payments totalling $30.6 million to all

clubs in 2012 from the Club Future Fund.

>>Other payments to clubs included amounts

for ground buyout agreements, distribution

of the AFL’s signage rights at Etihad

Stadium, prizemoney, travel subsidies and

promotional funding to help clubs

http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/AFL/Files/AFL%20Annual%20Report%202012_web.pdf

(Page 122)

The AFL distributed equal and disequal

payments totalling $30.6 million to all

clubs in 2012 from the Club Future Fund.

>>Other payments to clubs included amounts

for ground buyout agreements, distribution

of the AFL’s signage rights at Etihad

Stadium, prizemoney, travel subsidies and

promotional funding to help clubs

Thanks. Hard to understand why clubs like Geelong and Collingwood, who make millions from attendances would get more than some "poorer" clubs.

It would be more interesting to know how the amount is calculated and what it includes and what it doesn't. Is this the only funding clubs get?

I don't know. I don't really care but if the figures are there they mean little without knowing what they represent.

I don't understand this.

Threre are people out there who think that their club subsists on its own and the Demons are living at the courtesy of a benevolent AFL leadership that takes money from the richer clubs in order to keep the MFC alive.

The above means that that is bogus, a lie, and the figures represent the fact that ALL clubs rely on the money afforded to them by a league made up of ALL the clubs.

I don't understand this.

Threre are people out there who think that their club subsists on its own and the Demons are living at the courtesy of a benevolent AFL leadership that takes money from the richer clubs in order to keep the MFC alive.

The above means that that is bogus, a lie, and the figures represent the fact that ALL clubs rely on the money afforded to them by a league made up of ALL the clubs.

So? I'm not worried by what others think, I'm worried about what we get. The AFL have made it abundantly clear they want us around and we've been saved on a number of occasions. We now have a fish where the head is in first class condition so we could actually do ok.

Anyway thanks for providing the info.

This is the money we get for passing "GO"

So? I'm not worried by what others think, I'm worried about what we get. The AFL have made it abundantly clear they want us around and we've been saved on a number of occasions. We now have a fish where the head is in first class condition so we could actually do ok.

Anyway thanks for providing the info.

Perception is reality in the AFL, especially with The Bloated One close® to the end of his tenure with what has just happened.

They got the Head of Footy Ops from Clubland in Evans and he comes form an entitled Hawthorn with a staggeringly short memory.

What if the next CEO of the AFL isn't as equality-minded and socialistic as TBO?

This is an important argument - that ALL clubs are dependednt on the AFL and the AFL as an 18 team entity.

I don't understand this.

Threre are people out there who think that their club subsists on its own and the Demons are living at the courtesy of a benevolent AFL leadership that takes money from the richer clubs in order to keep the MFC alive.

The above means that that is bogus, a lie, and the figures represent the fact that ALL clubs rely on the money afforded to them by a league made up of ALL the clubs.

Collingwood's revenue was $75M+ in 2013

http://www.collingwoodfc.com.au/news/2013-11-25/collingwoods-2013-financial-result

They're making $20M+ out of their membership.

They don't "rely" on the AFL money.

Perception is reality in the AFL, especially with The Bloated One close® to the end of his tenure with what has just happened.

They got the Head of Footy Ops from Clubland in Evans and he comes form an entitled Hawthorn with a staggeringly short memory.

What if the next CEO of the AFL isn't as equality-minded and socialistic as TBO?

This is an important argument - that ALL clubs are dependednt on the AFL and the AFL as an 18 team entity.

RPFC, you comment often about the AFL needing to be an 18 team entity. I admire your confidence, but I just can't share the same.

Sure, the AFL are "locked in" for the duration of the current TV rights to have an 18 league competition, but there's nothing stopping them from changing that after 2016. I know one thing, we need to pull our finger out and improve (both off and onfield), as we will become a "nothing" team in terms of negotiating future TV rights. Why would the big networks want to pay to televise our games?

I am aware the AFL have stated (on numerous times) that the competition needs a Melbourne Football Club. I've said it often in response - I have never once heard them say they need a Melbourne Demons Football Club. It wouldn't be hard for them to merge us with North, then get a team up and running in Tasmania. Now, I know you have connections in that area, but the AFL are a rich and powerful club. They generally get what they want, and if they rang your mate today and said that there will be a team playing out of Tassie as of 2015, it will happen.

The next 5 years will be an interesting landscape, and for me, it's a big "watch this space".

RPFC, you comment often about the AFL needing to be an 18 team entity. I admire your confidence, but I just can't share the same.

Sure, the AFL are "locked in" for the duration of the current TV rights to have an 18 league competition, but there's nothing stopping them from changing that after 2016. I know one thing, we need to pull our finger out and improve (both off and onfield), as we will become a "nothing" team in terms of negotiating future TV rights. Why would the big networks want to pay to televise our games?

I am aware the AFL have stated (on numerous times) that the competition needs a Melbourne Football Club. I've said it often in response - I have never once heard them say they need a Melbourne Demons Football Club. It wouldn't be hard for them to merge us with North, then get a team up and running in Tasmania. Now, I know you have connections in that area, but the AFL are a rich and powerful club. They generally get what they want, and if they rang your mate today and said that there will be a team playing out of Tassie as of 2015, it will happen.

The next 5 years will be an interesting landscape, and for me, it's a big "watch this space".

Ok, give back a 1/9 of the TV money in the next deal...

The Tassie bid is nowhere.

There is no market there, Hawthorn is sucking off of that teet, the people of Tasmania watch AFL football, some of them are members, they have some of their corporate population exploited by AFL teams.

There is nothing left to get, there is no Tassie team on the horizon.

Collingwood's revenue was $75M+ in 2013

http://www.collingwoodfc.com.au/news/2013-11-25/collingwoods-2013-financial-result

They're making $20M+ out of their membership.

They don't "rely" on the AFL money.

No, but they rely on a compeition with about 14 clubs that do "rely" on AFL money.

So, indirectly, ALL clubs rely on it.

Ok, give back a 1/9 of the TV money in the next deal...

The Tassie bid is nowhere.

There is no market there, Hawthorn is sucking off of that teet, the people of Tasmania watch AFL football, some of them are members, they have some of their corporate population exploited by AFL teams.

There is nothing left to get, there is no Tassie team on the horizon.

In TV rights deals, is a Melbourne vs GWS game worth the same as a Carlton vs Collingwood game?

By saying that the AFL have to "give back" 1/9 in the next TV rights if they only had 17 teams playing is not right. Not all games are valued the same - some are worth a bloody sight more than others.

I'm hopeful it won't need to be an issue and that your confidence is justified.

There is ample "left to get" in Tassie. I'd imagine a true Tassie team would attract more members and create/convert a sustainable amount of supporters and members. If North can get acceptable crowds down that should be proof enough for the AFL that it would work when they decide to press the button.

Don't get me wrong RP, I'm not jumping at shadows, I'm just watching the Roos Reign with multiple interest levels, and I don't think I'm alone.

In TV rights deals, is a Melbourne vs GWS game worth the same as a Carlton vs Collingwood game?

By saying that the AFL have to "give back" 1/9 in the next TV rights if they only had 17 teams playing is not right. Not all games are valued the same - some are worth a bloody sight more than others.

I'm hopeful it won't need to be an issue and that your confidence is justified.

There is ample "left to get" in Tassie. I'd imagine a true Tassie team would attract more members and create/convert a sustainable amount of supporters and members. If North can get acceptable crowds down that should be proof enough for the AFL that it would work when they decide to press the button.

Don't get me wrong RP, I'm not jumping at shadows, I'm just watching the Roos Reign with multiple interest levels, and I don't think I'm alone.

The Tassie team is a shadow.

No, but they rely on a compeition with about 14 clubs that do "rely" on AFL money.

So, indirectly, ALL clubs rely on it.

That's a completely different point

Ok, give back a 1/9 of the TV money in the next deal...

Who says the next deal will be with TV? It may be with AFL Media.

That's a completely different point

Who says the next deal will be with TV? It may be with AFL Media.

Highly likely AFL will produce their own content. Media outlets to bid for packages. Punters to subscribe to a live stream. Will produce a revenue of an estimated $3bn compared to last media rights deal.

That's a completely different point

Is it?

For the teams in this league that can sustain themselves without the approx. $10m that all clubs get - they would not survive without most of those teams that need that $10m.

It's a complimentary point that evades the General Football Public's mind.

The Tassie team is a shadow.

Thanks for your reply RPFC. You are in a far better position than me regarding the Tasmania landscape for the AFL (from memory you have a friend that is invovled in the marketing department for AFL Tas?).

Would just like you to clarify my response in regards to your comment about the AFL needing 9 games, and how you claim that if a merger between Melbourn and North were to happen, that the AFL would lose 1/9 of their TV rights income. My response being that by saying this, you are implying that a Melbourne game is equal to a Collingwood game in terms of income generated from TV stations.

TIA.

I'm with rpfc on this. If the 4 clubs who don't need the AFL dividend want to play on their own, go for it. They aren't worth anything of they don't have tans to play against or other teams to help then saturate the market with AFL.

Similarly their revenue is unnaturally inflated by the uneven draw and exposure. If all clubs got an even share of time slots, and tv telecasts, the revenue of the top 4 would be heavily reduced; less numbers through the gate, less lucrative sponsorship deals, less tv rights share. For the bottom 4 the revenue would probably go up; less TV rights share but increase in membership and sponsorship. And given time the bottom 4 would have an opportunity to grow their brand and Membership base due to exposure.

Kids will follow the teams they see a lot, which means we will always struggle to make grow at the same rate as the clubs that get exposure.

The bottom clubs are making sacrifices to allow the AFL and the big clubs to make more money. Without the bottom clubs the AFL and the big clubs wouldn't make anywhere near as much money. Maybe you can lose 1 but not 4 or 8.

This sacrifice is not recognised by either the AFL or the big clubs.

Thanks for your reply RPFC. You are in a far better position than me regarding the Tasmania landscape for the AFL (from memory you have a friend that is invovled in the marketing department for AFL Tas?).

Would just like you to clarify my response in regards to your comment about the AFL needing 9 games, and how you claim that if a merger between Melbourn and North were to happen, that the AFL would lose 1/9 of their TV rights income. My response being that by saying this, you are implying that a Melbourne game is equal to a Collingwood game in terms of income generated from TV stations.

TIA.

I wouldn't know the exact fraction if St Kilda or Melbourne were not in the competition but the figure will be close to 1/9 if you are removing a game a week.

And, yes, the PR/consultancy firm used by the Tassie govt advised them before their latest deal with the Hawks that it would effectively end their chance to have a Tassie team.

The Tassie govt, signed the deal, and sealed their fate.

Hawthorn will not let go (and now NM) of their lucrative teet anytime soon.

I wouldn't know the exact fraction if St Kilda or Melbourne were not in the competition but the figure will be close to 1/9 if you are removing a game a week.

And, yes, the PR/consultancy firm used by the Tassie govt advised them before their latest deal with the Hawks that it would effectively end their chance to have a Tassie team.

The Tassie govt, signed the deal, and sealed their fate.

Hawthorn will not let go (and now NM) of their lucrative teet anytime soon.

Thanks RPFC.

So based on the current TV rights deal, the AFL would stand to lose a total maximum of $130m for the total duration of the rights should there be 8 games as opposed to 9. That's on the basis that all games are equal of value, which I would be amazed if that were the case.

Given that the AFL in 2012 have given Melbourne and North around $25m in funding, and nearly $20m in 2011, I don't think it would take them long to recoup any income losses from the potential of a lost 9th game in the fixture.

Every year that passes and Melbourne and North haven't made the finals, haven't made a profit, etc, my levels of concern rise from the previous year - and I'm not running the league! The fact that North rejected the "bail out package" a couple of years ago should they relocate to the Gold Coast is already a slap across Vlad's face, and I don't think he's the type that would forget in a hurry.

Thanks RPFC.

So based on the current TV rights deal, the AFL would stand to lose a total maximum of $130m for the total duration of the rights should there be 8 games as opposed to 9. That's on the basis that all games are equal of value, which I would be amazed if that were the case.

Given that the AFL in 2012 have given Melbourne and North around $25m in funding, and nearly $20m in 2011, I don't think it would take them long to recoup any income losses from the potential of a lost 9th game in the fixture.

Every year that passes and Melbourne and North haven't made the finals, haven't made a profit, etc, my levels of concern rise from the previous year - and I'm not running the league! The fact that North rejected the "bail out package" a couple of years ago should they relocate to the Gold Coast is already a slap across Vlad's face, and I don't think he's the type that would forget in a hurry.

I don't think it is as simple as TV money vs AFL grants to clubs as a value measurement.

If you lose $100m+ in TV money from losing a game a week, other stakeholders lose money - venues, merchandise, beverage, food stalls, et al.

I think that 18 teams and 9 games are entrenched and to move back to 8 games would be seen as a massive failure of the league, and the leaders of the league would do this and then hand in their resignations.

I don't think it is as simple as TV money vs AFL grants to clubs as a value measurement.

If you lose $100m+ in TV money from losing a game a week, other stakeholders lose money - venues, merchandise, beverage, food stalls, et al.

I think that 18 teams and 9 games are entrenched and to move back to 8 games would be seen as a massive failure of the league, and the leaders of the league would do this and then hand in their resignations.

With our poor crowd pulling ability (and North's too), I would imagine the food & bev stalls wouldn't be out of pocket much, if at all. As far as the venue goes, I'm of the understanding (and happy to be corrected) that they get their money regardless of crowd size. With a MFC home game bringing a crowd of 15k, by the time the venue takes their cut, I wouldn't think there'd be much left for the AFL to take their cut, which is why we lose money on certain games because there aint a thing left for our cut.

The AFL could see it as taking a step backwards to be able to take two steps forward. If they are too proud to do that (or as you say, this being seen as a massive failure), then they would look at options like Tassie to become the "18th" team. Trying to create a 5th "Power Club" by merging and help funding a Melbourne/North venture would potentially see the North push in to Tasmania become redundant, opening the door for a standalone Tassie club.

While your marketing company mate is a handy source of information for all things AFL Tasmania, it'd only take a phone call from Vlad tomorrow for that whole scenario to change. It could happen, it might not. As you say, at the moment nothing's happening, but I'd never say never while TBO is in charge, and even when his mini-me takes over he won't want to maintain what TBO has created, he'll want to stamp his own footprint on the game.