Just reading Peter Ryan's article on the AFL and the MFC websites on equalisation.

Sorry, haven't got links yet.

Also there was another article on the AFL website by Nick Bowen titled "Clubs brace for luxury slug under new equalisation measures."

The most surprising thing here, for me, is a rule I've never heard of, but that has apparently been in place for the last 2 years.

That is, that a team gets a $188k extra in their salary cap for each veteran who has played 10 years or more.

And that resulted in Geelong having an extra $1.06 mil in their salary cap last year.

No wonder they've been able to extend their run at the top when most expected them to fall...

Just reading Peter Ryan's article on the AFL and the MFC websites on equalisation.

Sorry, haven't got links yet.

Also there was another article on the AFL website by Nick Bowen titled "Clubs brace for luxury slug under new equalisation measures."

The most surprising thing here, for me, is a rule I've never heard of, but that has apparently been in place for the last 2 years.

That is, that a team gets a $188k extra in their salary cap for each veteran who has played 10 years or more.

And that resulted in Geelong having an extra $1.06 mil in their salary cap last year.

No wonder they've been able to extend their run at the top when most expected them to fall...

and alot of their stars are underpaid in order to stay together, that's an extra two A grade players.

I just don't see how any amount of money can make up for the lack of exposure created by the fixture. I see PJ doesn't mind the unbalanced fixture as long as we are compensated. I don't agree with that. I say fix the root cause of the inequity and go from there.

I just don't see how any amount of money can make up for the lack of exposure created by the fixture. I see PJ doesn't mind the unbalanced fixture as long as we are compensated. I don't agree with that. I say fix the root cause of the inequity and go from there.

The idea of true compensation is that whatever we're sacrificing is made up in other ways. Where we get into trouble is if the so-called "compensation" is only token in nature.

Just reading Peter Ryan's article on the AFL and the MFC websites on equalisation.

Sorry, haven't got links yet.

Also there was another article on the AFL website by Nick Bowen titled "Clubs brace for luxury slug under new equalisation measures."

The most surprising thing here, for me, is a rule I've never heard of, but that has apparently been in place for the last 2 years.

That is, that a team gets a $188k extra in their salary cap for each veteran who has played 10 years or more.

And that resulted in Geelong having an extra $1.06 mil in their salary cap last year.

No wonder they've been able to extend their run at the top when most expected them to fall...

!!!!!!

I know instead of every veteran only giving 40% towards the salary cap, they made it just one player gets that benefit, but I'd never heard of this before. Very interesting.

I just don't see how any amount of money can make up for the lack of exposure created by the fixture. I see PJ doesn't mind the unbalanced fixture as long as we are compensated. I don't agree with that. I say fix the root cause of the inequity and go from there.

That is it in a nutshell.

I think that the disadvantaged clubs should go on the offensive not against the AFL who are an ally in this, but rather against the advantaged cartel.

I personally don't give a rat's clacker about what Eddie says on this, but the interesting point is he is saying plenty. His is one of the most advantaged clubs by the draw.

It should be made clear to the whole AFL public that this is about the unfairness in the "fixedture" that leads to huge advantage in financial terms for some and huge disadvantages for others.

The way Eddie portrays it, is a tax, being charity for the weak, taken from the well managed and given to the poorly managed.

I would come out and say we don't want charity, we want a fair go in an equal draw. Give us the good draw and forget about equalisation. That would shut Eddie and his mates up.

Of course it won't happen, as the AFL is primarily about income and about football, somewhere way down the importance ladder.

Eddie and his mates are clearly winning the PR war as they are on the front foot.

I just don't see how any amount of money can make up for the lack of exposure created by the fixture. I see PJ doesn't mind the unbalanced fixture as long as we are compensated. I don't agree with that. I say fix the root cause of the inequity and go from there.

Personally, I see the extra money helping us to be properly competitive, and then once we are, we'll be rewarded with a more favourable fixture.

At least that's what I hope will happen.

We have started. Here is a bit from a PJ article on our website.

"He has no problem with the AFL's objective to maximise attendances, TV ratings and revenues through the fixture but says its important to recognise it remains a huge factor in the ability of clubs to increase their revenue.

For that reason, Jackson argues that the conversation on revenue sharing should focus on identifying the total revenue earned from each match − gate, membership (discounted entry), catering, reserved seating – and how that might be shared among clubs, given each club plays a part in maximising the overall revenue."

As PJ said we will only again be a great club when we are a great football team, great football teams draw bigger crowds, sign more members, get more game time on TV and such, as the team improves i have no doubt so will that side of things, i think right now the equalisation initiative would be great, if we can get this salary cap to 100% it can only make us a more competitive side and get us there faster.

Don't get sidetracked by that extra $118k for Geelong's vets. Everyone has had that option - designed to keep players in the game.

The real crux of this equalisation matter is, as Ryan eloquently wrote:

He has no problem with the AFL's objective to maximise attendances, TV ratings and revenues through the fixture but says its important to recognise it remains a huge factor in the ability of clubs to increase their revenue.

For that reason, Jackson argues that the conversation on revenue sharing should focus on identifying the total revenue earned from each match − gate, membership (discounted entry), catering, reserved seating – and how that might be shared among clubs, given each club plays a part in maximising the overall revenue.

He suggested revenue earned through merchandising, fundraising and sponsorship should not be shared.

This is where we should not allow Eddie to have his way - if he wants all the Friday night games (and so does Seven) then fine, but the money made on that night goes into a general pool that is equally distributed amongst the clubs.

Collingwood can keep the money its makes off merch and sponsorships, just not on the money they get from their favourable draw.

We have started. Here is a bit from a PJ article on our website.

"He has no problem with the AFL's objective to maximise attendances, TV ratings and revenues through the fixture but says its important to recognise it remains a huge factor in the ability of clubs to increase their revenue.

For that reason, Jackson argues that the conversation on revenue sharing should focus on identifying the total revenue earned from each match − gate, membership (discounted entry), catering, reserved seating – and how that might be shared among clubs, given each club plays a part in maximising the overall revenue."

Jackson as usual cuts to the chase. Each club plays it's part be it taking a hit at Etihad or a draw that is less than fair.

He also takes out the idea of sharing all revenue which Eddie has been using as a scare tactic to get his DH supporters ringing up on talkback thinking their membership money will go to other clubs.

Share game revenues evenly and we are on the way to a better competition. It appears there will be a cap on FD spending as well, some of the other stuff is floated by the AFL treating us all as idiots as usual and they will back down and appear conciliatory whilst getting what they wanted in the first place ...yawn.

In the end it will be good for us but we will need to work hard from then on to make certain we are not reliant in the future, things can change again and we do need to be self sufficient.

Don't get sidetracked by that extra $118k for Geelong's vets. Everyone has had that option - designed to keep players in the game.

The real crux of this equalisation matter is, as Ryan eloquently wrote:

This is where we should not allow Eddie to have his way - if he wants all the Friday night games (and so does Seven) then fine, but the money made on that night goes into a general pool that is equally distributed amongst the clubs.

Collingwood can keep the money its makes off merch and sponsorships, just not on the money they get from their favourable draw.

Don't like this idea at all Friday night is a huge financial benefit not only in gate takings but sponsorship & corporates. It's a bit like the chicken and the egg. If the Pies are playing every Friday night they will have Prime time exposure every week, therefore being very attractive sponsor wise. Same in regards to the corporates attending Friday nights and merchandise sales.

Still believe the Friday night games should be distributed amongst all the sides, fair enough the better performing sides should get more of them but every side deserves a shot at it. I also have a bee in my bonnet with the Pies & Bombers having exclusive rights to Anzac Day at the G. There are other clubs who would get huge crowds to the G for that day.

PJ is dead right. If the weaker clubs accept an unfair draw to ensure the AFL maximises its revenue and exposure, then they need to be compensated for doing so. Otherwise demand a fair draw and see viewing numbers etc plummet and the AFL empire shrink. That doesn't mean there need be C'wood playing every Friday night - some sort of compromise position makes sense.

I don't think the argument 'play better and the members will come' solves the problem. No matter how good some clubs get, for historical reasons their membership will always be limited. At least on timescales of generations. Does anyone really think all those C'Wood supporters who buy memberships when they are going well will suddenly en masse buy Dogs, Demons, Kangaroos memberships etc in sufficient numbers to make much difference. They'll just become non-paying C'Wood supporters. (Yes, Hawthorn improved but it didn't happen overnight and the circumstances may not be repeated.)

Don't like this idea at all Friday night is a huge financial benefit not only in gate takings but sponsorship & corporates. It's a bit like the chicken and the egg. If the Pies are playing every Friday night they will have Prime time exposure every week, therefore being very attractive sponsor wise. Same in regards to the corporates attending Friday nights and merchandise sales.

Still believe the Friday night games should be distributed amongst all the sides, fair enough the better performing sides should get more of them but every side deserves a shot at it. I also have a bee in my bonnet with the Pies & Bombers having exclusive rights to Anzac Day at the G. There are other clubs who would get huge crowds to the G for that day.

Crowds will dive and so will viewership.

Make it one bucket, and then the clubs will be more amenable to spreading around the Friday Night and Saturday Night games, but, remember, the AFL is always going to want to maximise attendances and viewership.

They can distribute what they like to the poorer clubs but as far as I'm concerned the damage is done , great fixtures over the last 12 years have given those clubs massive sponsorship deals and huge numbers in membership, why should a Pie supporter got to 8 Friday night games a year I don't go to any , the AFL sucks and has for the last 10 seasons the only game I watch these days is when the Demons play and I basically have no interest after that.

As long as we can pay for a fully functional Football Department and 100% of the salary cap the MFC can rise. We can be a well exposed club but we have to win that right.

People want to see the best footy on a friday night. We have to earn that.

And yes a % of the top line game revenue should be distributed to the lower clubs.

But the players must feel confident. Then they will perform.

All gate takings pooled and distributed evenly. Gate takings should be the AFL's.

Members are excluded so that all clubs are motivated to promote an increase in membership Max. 50k members. If clubs like Collingwood don't like it take away Friday nights and share them.

Or all gate takings from Friday nights go to the AFL. members of clubs playing to pay for Friday night matches.

I also have a bee in my bonnet with the Pies & Bombers having exclusive rights to Anzac Day at the G. There are other clubs who would get huge crowds to the G for that day.

Happy for us to give up the Queen's Birthday clash with Collingwood?

i've been advocating a fully socialist model for a decade, whereby afl takes all monies made from the game at the game, splits em equally 18 ways.

how the clubs individually choose to spend their $$ is then up to them - it could be in football, in innovation, what have you.

Ok.

- Friday nights are the big games for TV let's leave them as a slot for high rating and big matches. However the top 8 from the previous year guaranteed to host 1 game per year and all clubs host 1 game at least every second year. Any team that hosts a second Friday night game per year splits the gate money with the AFL and then gets it distributed to the clubs who miss out on a game that year.

- Saturday nights all divided equally

- Free to air v Foxtel games divided equally

Happy for us to give up the Queen's Birthday clash with Collingwood?

Thats a garbage argument these days with the draw we recieve, we have two games against sides that draw crowds, that's [censored].

i've been advocating a fully socialist model for a decade, whereby afl takes all monies made from the game at the game, splits em equally 18 ways.

how the clubs individually choose to spend their $$ is then up to them - it could be in football, in innovation, what have you.

But that punishes teams who work to increase their crowd and also means teams who get poor support just coast through. I'm fine with Melbourne having to draw decent crowds to be able to spend big but there has to be some control in the system that makes the gap stop getting wider.

I'd love a juicy pokies tax if it hurt Collingwood and Carlton but it would probably hurt us as well.

Thats a garbage argument these days with the draw we recieve, we have two games against sides that draw crowds, that's [censored].

I think it was just a point not to throw stones at Coll and Ess when we get QBday. I try to stay out of the ANZAC debate for that reason.

I think it was just a point not to throw stones at Coll and Ess when we get QBday. I try to stay out of the ANZAC debate for that reason.

Yeah but they get looked after on top of that.

Free to air games need to be divided equally too (I know this is a bit off topic). But I believe that kids/people are more likely to support a team that they are watching on tv. Ie they see the team lots and then end up members.

there are teams that you could go for a whole year without seeing on free to air if you have a social life, whereas you might see the hawks/pies on tv 7 or 8 times.