So you couldn't give a rats a*** about their tens of thousands of members, and many more supporters? Why them? Try putting yourself in a Doggies supporters shoes when you're told your club is now dust. Selfishness defined.

Agree. I'd rather find a way to keep all the current clubs. If that means not expanding into Tassie, ACT or even New Zealand, that would be my preference. Conversely, if further expansion would assist all Victorian clubs to survive, I'd pursue it.

This is not a new story. The AFL (as the VFL) faced the same issue in the mid-80s and resolved it by expanding into Perth and Brisbane, and subsequently Adelaide. That still wan't enough, so the Victorian clubs got involved with poker machines as an additional revenue source. As much as I despair at the amount of control the TV networks have over the game, without their dollars we'd be in deep trouble.

Typical Caro garbage article, will someone throw some water on this witch already.

Totally agree. This facts behind this article were published by her own media organisation on March 1 & 2.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/unprofitable-clubs-get-millions-in-aid-from-afl-20150301-13rqwm.html

A fornight later she is regurgitating the same story.

Perhaps she should have spoken with John Pierik and others who are the real journalists.....

If she had the slightest notion, she would be asking why 10 Victorian clubs have a total debt of $46M whereas the Interstate clubs have a combined debt of over $55M. And for those interstate clubs that debt is not owed to the AFL, as they have been throwing cash at them willy-nilly for many years. Note Port, Brisbane, Sydney and now GWS and GC.

Regardless of the level of debt, the question is whether the cash flows generated by each club are sufficient to service that debt. Most of the Victorian clubs do ( North and Dogs perhaps not).

So go and find the real story that lies beneath the surface.

The clubs are always 'pre-spending' the next TV rights deal. If one goes pear shaped and Gill only gets a small increase or less than the previous deal then they are cooked. They are mortgaging the future on an ever increasing revenue pie, Very dangerous indeed.

And just on GC and GWS. The whole deal was predicated on the fact that around 60% of all advertising revenue comes from NSW and Southern QLD. So unless you have a 'product' to sell to those markets you are missing out on revenue and the TV rights deal will be limited. So in the AFLs mind they have to be there. Not saying it's right but that is the reasoning.

Agree with this 'Webber', I'm not sure the locations of the expansion clubs was well chosen though.

Equalisation is the biggest issue facing the game and whilst it's nice to have cheaper chips at the footy this is a little like fiddling while Rome is burning. Smoke and mirrors to me.

There is simple logic to the decision to have a second team in each of Queensland and New South Wales. And that's to ensure there's a game in each of those two States each weekend. That then allows for a significant boost in TV rights revenue which then flows through to the 18 clubs. In short, without this expansion, the dollars flowing from TV rights would be significantly less and clubs like ours, the Bulldogs, North Melbourne and St Kilda might not survive.

The argument is often made that Tasmania would be a better location for a team than GWS. Undoubtedly it would for community support. But it would do absolutely nothing for TV revenue because not only is it a small market, but the Tasmanians are already watching AFL, so there would be no net financial gain.

Whether the implementation of the Suns and Giants teams has been well executed is a different question. However, no-one in the AFL would have expected that the Suns and Giants would be making money in their early years.

SNAP

Not a good look for a club CEO to comment on the operations of other clubs in this manner I think.

WCE has a pretty different set up to nearly every other club which (in tandem with their football market for 2 clubs) makes footy life a whole lot easier.

I think this promotion from the WCE website puts things into perspective:

http://www.westcoasteagles.com.au/inspire/terms-conditions

"1. The promoter is Indian Pacific Limited (trading as West Coast Eagles Football Club)" lol

Indian Pacific now wholely owned by WAFC which owns licenses of Eagles and Dockers.

I'm not saying that the bad portion of increasing club debt isn't important to tackle but to accuse other clubs of being delusional and undisciplined is pretty cheap coming from the Ivory tower of the west.

The argument is often made that Tasmania would be a better location for a team than GWS. Undoubtedly it would for community support. But it would do absolutely nothing for TV revenue because not only is it a small market, but the Tasmanians are already watching AFL, so there would be no net financial gain.

This is the argument I've been putting forward ever since people started pushing the Tassie barrow. As a Tasmanian, I wouldn't barrack for the Tassie team: I'm a rusted on MFC supporter. I don't know many other rusted on MFC supporters but I know a truckload of rusted on Hawthorn, North and Collingwood supporters and I can't see them changing allegiances either. Even if they did, it's at the expense of the existing clubs supporter base. I can't see the point.

SNAP

Not really...

I don't think Western Sydney is a good location and as for Gold Coast no major team sport has ever succeeded there including our game when Brisbane were based there.

So you couldn't give a rats a*** about their tens of thousands of members, and many more supporters? Why them? Try putting yourself in a Doggies supporters shoes when you're told your club is now dust. Selfishness defined.

I would fold them up tomorrow. We want a stronger competition - on and off the field.

This isn't about tens of thousands of members. This is about what is best for the game of AFL - as without the game those clubs wouldn't exist.

Given that the AFL is a business, it should be trying to put the highest quality product it can to the people. It can kill 2 birds with the one stone here.

Makes sense for the good of the game, and from a business perspective. One of the very rare instances those two aspects align.

I reckon this is piece put out by the AFL as a starting salvo for the next round of the of the CBA negotiations.

Equalization is total BS until and unless the participating clubs share the revenue from each game, after deducting running expenses. It takes two to tango. After all when Melbourne play the Drug Cheats at the G it is always their home game so they scoop the pool. I know Eddie has generously given us home rights on QB but when the "big clubs" continually get home gigs at the G they only get richer. Nobody has ever tried to justify why one "home club" at a shared ground should take all.

Further to this, the large clubs get access to better time slots, further increasing their revenue compared to the smaller clubs. It's a vicious cycle, the small clubs need money to try and rise up the ladder and grow their club, but they have less access to revenue's and therefore just fall further behind.

Some clubs will fail. I have no doubt.

That said i truly believe the MFC can be one of the strong clubs into the future.

We have to be run cleverly. Shrewd decisions need to be made to bridge the gap

I hope within 5 years we can be playing all home games at the MCG.

These next 2 years with Roos are critical, without improvement onfield we could end up like the dogs and Nought

I'm actually more worried about the Queensland clubs than GWS. GWS is a strategic long term investment by the AFL and doesn't need to turn a profit as a club to make money overall for the league. If they take 10 mil more per year to get to break even then it's probably enough to be viable. It takes about 20mil per season to prop them up now, but if they expand quickly to getting 10k average attendance and eventually closer to 20k then they'll make enough money.

Very soon (if not already) the WA (new stadium), SA as well as Ess, Rich, Coll, Haw teams will be averaging close to 50k attendance and have TV drawing power. Carlton run properly could produce the same. Sydney and Geelong wont be at that level due to their stadiums but will be consistent, Geelong will make money running their own stadium and Sydney have TV drawing power as well.

The Queensland clubs need to be doing well otherwise they fall in a hole quickly. See Brisbane's debt. And they aren't as strategically important as GWS. They don't need to be at the level of the big clubs but if they aren't drawing solid crowds and memberships things might get ugly.

That leaves us, St Kilda, WB and North. If the Queensland clubs and GWS get it together then there will be a lot of very strong AFL clubs both inside and out of Victoria and huge pressure on the smaller Victorian clubs. I can see mergers as well as partial and full relocations. The bigger clubs wont support smaller clubs and any down turn in league revenue will see the heat applied. The time is perfect now for us to somehow work through the inequity in the competition and re-establish ourselves as a strong club. We've probably got 5-10 years to get a training base organised, to make sure our smallest crowds are still above 25k and that we are regularly drawing 50k+ against fellow Victorian clubs and to build the membership over 50k as well. If it doesn't happen soon then I wonder if it ever will.

I disagree with the thoughts on here about it being a certain failure.

I played in a rep side back in the 80s from outer eastern Melbourne suburbs V a rep side from Mt Druitt in Mt Druitt which is just west of Blacktown.

There was good support for Aussie rules then in that area with active aussie rules teams (though demographics may have changed a tad since then) and if an interstate AFL (VFL then) side had been setup then our brand of footy would already be a success there.

Surely there has not been a complete overhaul of population preferences in that time.

They will get there but it will take time.

The cost is secondary to the mantra of grow or perish.

What's the nature of the debt?

Melbourne's debt was reduced from $5 million to zero with the Jim Stynes push a few years back, but now it's $7 million again. But that's not mainly on club operations like the old debt was, it's on venue mortgages when they took the gaming club over. If that's part of the $100 million total, it's meaningless, because it provides income and profit as well.

If it's West Coast making utterances, you can bet there's an ulterior motive they want in their favour.

What's the nature of the debt?

Melbourne's debt was reduced from $5 million to zero with the Jim Stynes push a few years back, but now it's $7 million again. But that's not mainly on club operations like the old debt was, it's on venue mortgages when they took the gaming club over. If that's part of the $100 million total, it's meaningless, because it provides income and profit as well.

If it's West Coast making utterances, you can bet there's an ulterior motive they want in their favour.

Or it could be a diversion to distract the media from a less palatable WA-based story. Have there been any stories of concern out of WA regarding current or former WA players recently?

So you couldn't give a rats a*** about their tens of thousands of members, and many more supporters? Why them? Try putting yourself in a Doggies supporters shoes when you're told your club is now dust. Selfishness defined.

I'm gonna put it out there Webber. I hate myself for it. And I don't want those clubs to fold/move, but if there was a scenario where they were getting an offer, I'd be giving them a little push, or supporting the decision to move. Because it means it won't be my team.

I feel sorry for the supporters, but honestly, I don't think long term the competition will maintain 10 Vic teams. So if there is a chance one goes that isn't us, I can't see a way around secretly hoping for it.

Greater Western Sydney is the AFL's Arnhem

Qld has a history and ongoing migration of mexicans to sustain a healthy interest in the code whilst the younger generations grow up.

A sensible outfit works to its strengths.

I'm gonna put it out there Webber. I hate myself for it. And I don't want those clubs to fold/move, but if there was a scenario where they were getting an offer, I'd be giving them a little push, or supporting the decision to move. Because it means it won't be my team.

I feel sorry for the supporters, but honestly, I don't think long term the competition will maintain 10 Vic teams. So if there is a chance one goes that isn't us, I can't see a way around secretly hoping for it.

Ah, but that's a very different discussion deanox. The 'him or me' dilemma. Well, it's not really a dilemma, because if it HAS to be, then let it not be me, so of course I'd rather see the Dogs or Kangas go than us. I just don't think it has to be. If the AFL are prepared to look a little beyond profit as the primary motivation, then protecting all clubs is essential to that ethos. Australia's population is growing quickly, and sports scheduling is becoming rapidly more malleable, so I wouldn't be surprised if the AFL grew to 20, maybe more. It may end up broken into 2 conferences, with consequent finals between the top 3 or 4 of each. It's clear that the AFL aren't presently prepared to push clubs to the wall, or WE would be gone. In fact, they prop up any club that needs propping. The problem is that they aren't truly committed to addressing the imbalance in wealth and thus opportunity that is also growing.

There is Good debt and Bad debt. The AFL have Good debt.

Our country had good debt until Hockey got his mitts on it.

Qld has a history and ongoing migration of mexicans to sustain a healthy interest in the code

To digress from the thread a bit.

I work for an org that has a larger presence in Sydney than ours in Melbourne and we were regularly called Mexicans as we are south of the border yada yada.

I quite rightly pointed out to my geographically challenged colleagues that the Mexicans are the ones closest the equator with the inference being they are addled by greater sun exposure and therefore they must wear the mantle due the "inferior" Melbourne weather. (You can't have it both ways).

Mexicans no more.

We definately don't suffer that issue in Melbourne.

Not all clubs in Victoria will survive.

You would be delusional to think MFC are not fairly and squarely in the gun. The only people that can stop the trigger being pulled is the MFC supporters - win lose or draw any games.

As long as clubs like GWS, Sydney, Brisbane and GC continue to depend on AFL money to continue, things will go along as they are. Clubs like us, North, Bulldogs and Saints still provide a significant percentage of the the bread and butter that sustains the comp. Lack of success has certainly drained them but there is a lot of core and latent support that is not transferable. The AFL cannot live off the cream alone from Collingwood, Essendon Etc. Expansion clubs north of the Murray continue to drain the competitions capital.

As long as clubs like GWS, Sydney, Brisbane and GC continue to depend on AFL money to continue, things will go along as they are. Clubs like us, North, Bulldogs and Saints still provide a significant percentage of the the bread and butter that sustains the comp. Lack of success has certainly drained them but there is a lot of core and latent support that is not transferable. The AFL cannot live off the cream alone from Collingwood, Essendon Etc. Expansion clubs north of the Murray continue to drain the competitions capital.

well, to be a little pedantic, all afl clubs depend on the afl for money. the biggest amount of money coming from tv rights goes to the afl, who in turn dish it out to all clubs.

but i take your point on the cost of maintaining our northern cousins

Greater Western Sydney is the AFL's Arnhem

Qld has a history and ongoing migration of mexicans to sustain a healthy interest in the code whilst the younger generations grow up.

A sensible outfit works to its strengths.

That dates you a bit, BB. I guess these days it is Vietnam or Afghanistan ...

To digress from the thread a bit.

I work for an org that has a larger presence in Sydney than ours in Melbourne and we were regularly called Mexicans as we are south of the border yada yada.

I quite rightly pointed out to my geographically challenged colleagues that the Mexicans are the ones closest the equator with the inference being they are addled by greater sun exposure and therefore they must wear the mantle due the "inferior" Melbourne weather. (You can't have it both ways).

Mexicans no more.

We definately don't suffer that issue in Melbourne.

Just call the other buggers Canadians ...