Article quietly hidden in the Financial review:

http://www.afr.com/business/sport/the-afl-propped-up-gold-coast-suns-with-25m-after-sponsorship-woes-20180201-h0s15t

While most clubs get $10-15M from the AFL each year, this is an absolute disgrace for an enterprise that simply will NOT work.  How would an extra $10M go at any other club?

There are no fans in the back blocks of the Gold Coast, and the list of failed sporting teams from that area is long. 

Can't get sponsors....there is a reason for that.....businesses can see value in promotion through sport, but they can also see that money would be wasted with this venture....

How well would a Tasmanian team go if the AFL threw in $25 M toward their operating costs?  And then provide ambassadorships to leading players on top of their salary cap?

Edited February 5, 20187 yr by george_on_the_outer

How is this a surprise? The AFL will not let GCS or GWS fail.

 

As for a Tassie team, it's been gone over again and again. But it looks like NMFC will eventually become "the" Tassie team, by stealth.

Bears $$$hit in woods...

Edited February 5, 20187 yr by Danelska

I can't read the article as I'm not a subscriber, but the financial payment doesn't surprise me or trouble me. The AFL would have known the GWS and GCS projects would cost money and wouldn't have proceeded unless it was prepared to back them for a long time. Nevertheless, the AFL probably didn't expect GCS to perform on field so poorly which will have exacerbated the problem.

Truth be told, the AFL providing financial backing to original clubs based in the AFL's heartland should be a bigger concern.

 

5 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I can't read the article as I'm not a subscriber, but the financial payment doesn't surprise me or trouble me. The AFL would have known the GWS and GCS projects would cost money and wouldn't have proceeded unless it was prepared to back them for a long time. Nevertheless, the AFL probably didn't expect GCS to perform on field so poorly which will have exacerbated the problem.

Truth be told, the AFL providing financial backing to original clubs based in the AFL's heartland should be a bigger concern.

 

they're not "providing financial backing", they are redistributing (some of) the tv rights money which wouldn't exist if it weren't for the clubs...... no clubs, no afl.....the fact that the afl waste so much money "should be the bigger concern"

7 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

they're not "providing financial backing", they are redistributing (some of) the tv rights which wouldn't exist if it weren't for the clubs...... no clubs, no afl.....the fact that the afl waste so much money "should be the bigger concern"

I agree. And if there wasn't a game each week in NSW and Qld there would be less TV rights money to go round. It would be interesting to know, but probably impossible to accurately ascertain, whether the increased money from having a game each week in NSW and Qld fully covers the losses of the two new clubs. 

19 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I agree. And if there wasn't a game each week in NSW and Qld there would be less TV rights money to go round. It would be interesting to know, but probably impossible to accurately ascertain, whether the increased money from having a game each week in NSW and Qld fully covers the losses of the two new clubs. 

I would like to see the statts that show there are more people watching TV because there is a gold coast team.

It’s more about GW$

The Gold coast just fills in the gap on the East Coast

it will never work. No sport has ever lasted up there

but the AFL will never admit defeat (for the next 20-30 years at least)

24 minutes ago, old dee said:

I would like to see the statts that show there are more people watching TV because there is a gold coast team.

I'm not sure that there are more people watching yet because of GCS's abysmal performances. But I'd be reasonably confident that if GCS performed well on-field, there would be more Queenslanders watching. And not just those living on the Gold Coast. 

1 minute ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I'm not sure that there are more people watching yet because of GCS's abysmal performances. But I'd be reasonably confident that if GCS performed well on-field, there would be more Queenslanders watching. And not just those living on the Gold Coast. 

My anecdotal evidence ( my brother and three good friends live in SEQLD ) is that the vast majority of people watching AFL in QLD are x southerners.  They watch the teams they have supported all their lives not the Suns.

However it really does not matter what the actual facts are the AFL will plough on well after I am in the ground.

26 minutes ago, old dee said:

My anecdotal evidence ( my brother and three good friends live in SEQLD ) is that the vast majority of people watching AFL in QLD are x southerners.  They watch the teams they have supported all their lives not the Suns.

However it really does not matter what the actual facts are the AFL will plough on well after I am in the ground.

You've given me an amusing visual of Gillon on a tractor ploughing up a cemetery. Hopefully many years from now, of course.

26 minutes ago, old dee said:

My anecdotal evidence ( my brother and three good friends live in SEQLD ) is that the vast majority of people watching AFL in QLD are x southerners.  They watch the teams they have supported all their lives not the Suns.

This is true for the Lions as well. I was a Bears/Lions member in 1996 and 1997 and most members went for the Bears/Lions most weeks, except when they were playing the team they always supported. Games against the Pies were like an away game. There was thousands of them.

The reason GWS and GC are in existence is simple and twofold. I have said it before and I'll say it again.

60% of the advertising revenue in Australia comes from NSW and Southern QLD.

Rugby league viewing stats (in around 2008 when the decision was made to expand the AFL) had the NRL holding around 8 of the top 12 viewed sports programs excluding the Beijing Olympics).

The AFL, on order to make theirs the pre-eminent national product for advertisers, needed greater exposure on those two regions. They were given a solid head start because the AFL did not want to see the Brisbane Bears reincarnated. They wanted a competitive team quickly. This has happened with GWS but GC seems to have stuffed it up.

All the clubs agreed to it and to the concessions.

We have 9 games a week which is why TV revenue drives outcomes. IN 2011 braodcast rights were around $1.25bn. In 2016 these rights were around $2.5bn.

Be in no doubt that this show is driven by TV money and not by 'real fans'.

 

   

GWS should have been a Canberra side and Gold Coast a Tasmanian side, I dare to say over the next 15-20 years they both will be

2 minutes ago, drdrake said:

GWS should have been a Canberra side and Gold Coast a Tasmanian side, I dare to say over the next 15-20 years they both will be

Unfortunately, there's no commercial value to the AFL in placing a team in Tassie. The incremental increase in revenue would be miniscule because of the small population and the fact that most are already watching AFL. That's why Gold Coast was a preferred option. 

How many dollars has the AFL used propping up the Dees over the years. 

It may be that a 2nd Brisbane team would have been a better option though Brisbane and the Gold Coast get closer every year to being one merged metropolis.

5 minutes ago, demoniac said:

How many dollars has the AFL used propping up the Dees over the years. 

It may be that a 2nd Brisbane team would have been a better option though Brisbane and the Gold Coast get closer every year to being one merged metropolis.

almost identical distance and expansion as melbourne to geelong

Edited February 5, 20187 yr by daisycutter

3 minutes ago, demoniac said:

How many dollars has the AFL used propping up the Dees over the years. 

It may be that a 2nd Brisbane team would have been a better option though Brisbane and the Gold Coast get closer every year to being one merged metropolis.

Bugger compared to QLD. We got one hand out one year. The rest is what numerous other clubs get as the result of the favoured draw some other clubs get. 

3 hours ago, Mazer Rackham said:

How is this a surprise? The AFL will not let GCS or GWS fail.

 

As for a Tassie team, it's been gone over again and again. But it looks like NMFC will eventually become "the" Tassie team, by stealth.

I'm not so sure about this. If the AFL run this at a loss for a decade or more and there's a leadership change at AFL HQ, I could see them pulling the pin.

1 hour ago, demoniac said:

How many dollars has the AFL used propping up the Dees over the years. 

It may be that a 2nd Brisbane team would have been a better option though Brisbane and the Gold Coast get closer every year to being one merged metropolis.

We received a 1.4 million grant in 2013 and that's about it.

I've challenged those who disagree to put up or shut up and they've offered nothing. 

Compare that to the ongoing tens of millions of dollars being thrown at the Suns & Giants.  The Giants are also highly dependent on AFL funding despite being more successful on the field than the Suns.

And that ongoing funding will need to continue for a long time yet (for both the 2 new teams)

It's not something that is highlighted by our media either - the story doesn't sell and the media are happy to toe the party line anyway.

Edited February 5, 20187 yr by Macca

34 minutes ago, old dee said:

Bugger compared to QLD. We got one hand out one year. The rest is what numerous other clubs get as the result of the favoured draw some other clubs get. 

We go to Darwin for 'home games' whilst on our ground and on the same day Richmond and Essendon play the heavily promoted Dreamtime game. The humiliation.

There is no real substance to Brisvegas. Its actually something Qld gov and GC council are actively addressing. They know it's all fairy floss and woofle dust ( well...some sort of 'dust' )

To suggest it's vacuous of foundations is a non-brainer. 

You cant grow if you can't sustain. Its wither and die paddock country effectively.

If Giantsville is a bottomless pit ...GC is THE ABYSS !!!

25 minutes ago, A F said:

I'm not so sure about this. If the AFL run this at a loss for a decade or more and there's a leadership change at AFL HQ, I could see them pulling the pin.

I tend to agree Adam ... the heavy funding can't just go on indefinitely.  Decisions made by others aren't always held up years later. 

It's going to be very difficult for either of the 2 new teams to turn a profit.  Every year more revenues need to be had and the 2 teams may well be always playing catch-up. 

And if the AFL's revenues drop away a bit the pressure might come to bear ... not for a while yet though for the reasons others have outlined (above) 

Regardless,  it will be interesting to see the levels of funding in 7 or 8 years time - until then they're safe you'd think.

I'd say in 7 or 8 years any club will need revenues of at least 65-70 million (or more) I think we're sitting at about 52 million right now and we're just in the black by a million or so.  It takes a fair whack of money just to break even. 

4 hours ago, Mazer Rackham said:

How is this a surprise? The AFL will not let GCS or GWS fail.

 

As for a Tassie team, it's been gone over again and again. But it looks like NMFC will eventually become "the" Tassie team, by stealth.

If anyone, Richmond should rightly be the Tassie Tigers. (Then we could take over Punt Road oval which is in Melbourne not Richmond!) problem solved (for us)!

I'd be more concerned that GCS will exploit the Tom Lynch marquee player additional outside cap money like Brisbane and Sydney did with COLA than any off-field propping up

Edited February 5, 20187 yr by Doodle Dee