6 minutes ago, Doodle Dee said:

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

Recently discussed in another thread, if Lynch stays at GC the AFL “would have no issue” paying him as an ambassador on top of his wage. 

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.perthnow.com.au/sport/afl/afl-could-pay-forward-tom-lynch-for-ambassadorial-role-should-he-re-sign-at-gold-coast-beyond-2018-ng-0ee762b5031aeaaa682fb5b6da5fac8f.amp

Edited February 5, 20187 yr by Ethan Tremblay

44 minutes ago, Doodle Dee said:

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

Would rather see Lynch be paid outside the cap to stay on the G.C, than see him run out with Colonwood next year.

 

Everything about the game now is about T.V and the money that comes with it. It's bad business to see a side smashed every week. Advertisers don't want to spend money when nobody is watching. It's also why the AFL installed professional management for us, including Jacko. We were on deaths door, but it would have meant one less T.V game every week if we folded.

If that means they pay Lynch to stay on the coast, I'm fine with that. I would spew if he ran out with Eddies mob, or essedon.

saints are also massively propped up by the afl's coffers, i believe, thanks to the seaford folly?

My two cents is that it boils down to onfield performance.  When they get their admin sorted and their football department organised and resourced, it’ll all turn around for them.  There’s a lot of talent on that list and good infrastructure in place- not to toe the AFL line, but it was always going to take time.

People in a new market  aren’t going to be seduced by a team that gets habitually smashed and has all their better players fleeing the state.  I think market success in Queensland is far more likely than Western Sydney.  When the wins start to come, people will get involved.

6 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

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?

Melbourne 2013

If ever a team was going to succeed on the Gold Coast it was the Titans and we know what their crowds are like.

GCS are a placeholder/negotiating tool for TV rights.

May have done just as well with a FNQ team ... at least that way we would have had a trip to the sun each year !

As others have mentioned the real worry is Brisbane... they have been there/on the GC now for nearly 30 years and they are on struggle street.

4 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

If ever a team was going to succeed on the Gold Coast it was the Titans and we know what their crowds are like.

GCS are a placeholder/negotiating tool for TV rights.

May have done just as well with a FNQ team ... at least that way we would have had a trip to the sun each year !

As others have mentioned the real worry is Brisbane... they have been there/on the GC now for nearly 30 years and they are on struggle street.

It’s all about Greater Western Sydney. That’s the population the AFL want. It will be the same size as Sydney is now in 20-30 years

Brisbane and GC are just useful for broadcast rights deals. The AFL can cover  those costs when $Billion deals are done. 

7 hours ago, Mazer Rackham said:

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

 

Both will fail.  It is inevitable.   Simple economics will win in the end.

53 minutes ago, Petraccattack said:

Both will fail.  It is inevitable.   Simple economics will win in the end.

GWS will get an ACT following that just might allow it to build critical mass...

Mind you by critical mass I mean attendances around the 20-25k number.

In western sydney they seem to be largely irrelevant. At present there simply is no buzz around the team unlike when the Swans first moved to Sydney. Mind you Edelsten and his pink helicopter etc were about as far out as you can get.

 

Wish we could skip all of this and get straight to the Tassie footy side~!

Edited February 5, 20187 yr by Doodle Dee

11 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

If ever a team was going to succeed on the Gold Coast it was the Titans and we know what their crowds are like.

GCS are a placeholder/negotiating tool for TV rights.

May have done just as well with a FNQ team ... at least that way we would have had a trip to the sun each year !

As others have mentioned the real worry is Brisbane... they have been there/on the GC now for nearly 30 years and they are on struggle street.

I'm not sure we should compare AFL crowd numbers with those who attend NRL games. NRL seems to get smaller average crowds than AFL but still good average TV viewership. I think that model's a big risk for the NRL. I would be concerned that TV audiences won't be sustainable if the viewers are regularly seeing half-empty (or worse) grandstands.  

18 hours 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.

You need to stop the Bulltish about propping up the Dees. Its garbage

The AFL has an uneven draw which kills clubs that don't get Friday night games , blockbusters and marquee times. Carlton haven't played at Kardinia park since 1998 I believe. We have been the home team against Essendon twice in the last 10 or 11 years as an example.

Stadium deals also kill a lot of clubs. We play the G with 20,000 and we lose money. The cats with 20,000 make $500k.

West Coast spend $300k a week more than melb because their stadium deal sees than get all the corprate box revenue, all the advertising revenue and a large cut of the food and bev revenue.

The AFL recognise these imbalances because of the nherently unequal nature of the competition hence the equalisation fund. 

It is NOT proping up Melbourne and anyone that suggests it is should rightly be shot down in flames.

19 hours 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

In  that town there is only a bunch of morally corrupt overpaid guys chasing whores and wasting money and in the others they just grow fruit or go surfing.

12 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

You need to stop the Bulltish about propping up the Dees. Its garbage

The AFL has an uneven draw which kills clubs that don't get Friday night games , blockbusters and marquee times. Carlton haven't played at Kardinia park since 1998 I believe. We have been the home team against Essendon twice in the last 10 or 11 years as an example.

Stadium deals also kill a lot of clubs. We play the G with 20,000 and we lose money. The cats with 20,000 make $500k.

West Coast spend $300k a week more than melb because their stadium deal sees than get all the corprate box revenue, all the advertising revenue and a large cut of the food and bev revenue.

The AFL recognise these imbalances because of the nherently unequal nature of the competition hence the equalisation fund. 

It is NOT proping up Melbourne and anyone that suggests it is should rightly be shot down in flames.

Well said. If you just look at Carlton getting 6 Friday night games this year, it is a major revenue raiser, assists with finding a sponsor and many other benefits. Am looking forward to seeing the Blues pumped in the majority of their Friday night games.

AFL provide a fixture to maximise their revenue, TV deal etc and attendances, the smaller clubs suffer, Melbourne and a few other smaller clubs should get compensated by the AFL every year for this imbalance. We get screwed royally every year.

The salary cap and the draft are the two key items that level the playing field for the 18 teams, the fixture doesn’t!

Burnie FC quits Tasmanian State League.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-06/burnie-football-club-quits-tasmanian-state-league/9399578

While the expansion clubs and Brissie may not be profitable for decades, I suspect the AFL was able to get those losses well covered through the additional revenue weekly games in NSW and QLD added to the tv rights deal. 

Making the individual clubs p&l at this stage is irrelevant. 

Edited February 6, 20187 yr by PaulRB

41 minutes ago, Biffen said:

In  that town there is only a bunch of morally corrupt overpaid guys chasing whores and wasting money and in the others they just grow fruit or go surfing.

 

1 hour ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Burnie FC quits Tasmanian State League.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-06/burnie-football-club-quits-tasmanian-state-league/9399578

and that joins deveonport fc who also quit for 2018 leaving no nw coast teams in the state league (now 5 hobart teams and 2 launceston). tassie senior football has been a partisan shambles for at least the last 30 years and not getting any better 

the issue of an afl side there is a different issue

in fact if they had an afl side that 'might' be the impetus to finally get their statewide senior league in order

2 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

the issue of an afl side there is a different issue

in fact if they had an afl side that 'might' be the impetus to finally get their statewide senior league in order

Most of the men who can play footy leave  tassie to find work, they would have better luck with a womens team down there

23 hours ago, D4Life said:

AFL provide a fixture to maximise their revenue, TV deal etc and attendances, the smaller clubs suffer, Melbourne and a few other smaller clubs should get compensated by the AFL every year for this imbalance. We get screwed royally every year.

The salary cap and the draft are the two key items that level the playing field for the 18 teams, the fixture doesn’t!

Not sure you are correct here. 

The MFC supports the AFL' s right to maximise revenues thru its use of a fixture. Small clubs do get compensated on a yearly basis.  

The draft is not a equalisation tool - all evidence points towards the opposite. 

The salary cap only is an equalisation tool when you take a long-term approach pay 100% every year - think Jake Lever. 

Spending inside your football department is the only effective equalisation tool - player welfare and giving them the opportunity to reach their maximum potential is our primary road to equalisation. 

Saying all that, I think your response is tad one-eyed ( now hush, hush which I personally think is good )

But dont forget at times we will have to support the wider AFL community and support the AFL in their agenda. We might not agree, but their is a bigger picture the club has to consider. Classic example - ANZAC eve blockbuster - for some reason our mates at Richmond love playing us long may it continue. 

 

 

  

Edited February 7, 20187 yr by DaveyDee

3 hours ago, DaveyDee said:

Not sure you are correct here. 

The MFC supports the AFL' s right to maximise revenues thru its use of a fixture. Small clubs do get compensated on a yearly basis.  

The draft is not a equalisation tool - all evidence points towards the opposite. 

The salary cap only is an equalisation tool when you take a long-term approach pay 100% every year - think Jake Lever. 

Spending inside your football department is the only effective equalisation tool - player welfare and giving them the opportunity to reach their maximum potential is our primary road to equalisation. 

Saying all that, I think your response is tad one-eyed ( now hush, hush which I personally think is good )

But dont forget at times we will have to support the wider AFL community and support the AFL in their agenda. We might not agree, but their is a bigger picture the club has to consider. Classic example - ANZAC eve blockbuster - for some reason our mates at Richmond love playing us long may it continue. 

 

 

  

The concept was developed between the two clubs as they always draw large numbers. ANZAC day is taken and this is a great alternative. I actually think its a better spectacle than the day game.

What are you trying to say? We are getting charity from Richmond? Pfft........

56 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

The concept was developed between the two clubs as they always draw large numbers. ANZAC day is taken and this is a great alternative. I actually think its a better spectacle than the day game.

What are you trying to say? We are getting charity from Richmond? Pfft........

As Peter Jackson has said on numerous occasions - you earn your own fixture. We no longer whinge and whine about a fixture as a club. 

Nothing to do with charity - quite the opposite.

We should be proud of ANZAC day eve - its a huge achievement. We work in partnership with the Tigers to create a win-win blockbuster.

I have no problem with a one-eyed approach or a us against them mentality - but in reality you have to work with the wider AFL community to get the best results for all. 

2 hours ago, DaveyDee said:

 - you earn your own fixture.

Rubbish... let's start with Carlton and we'll work from there

Ask the 2016 premiers how their fixture looks for 2018.

Tell me why we play home games in NT before crowds of little more than 10,000

In the above thread people keep saying that it's all about TV rights and that attendances and success are secondary. In that case please explain why Melbourne as an up and coming team with a bunch of exciting youngsters gets such abysmal FTA coverage.

I know all the reasons why the above occur but I get a little tired of AFL apologists saying it will all get better. The fact is we along with three other Melbourne based teams are simply in the comp to make up the numbers. Luckily the draft and salary cap give us a chance of on field success because the cards are well and truly stacked against us when it comes to financial success.

Edited February 7, 20187 yr by Diamond_Jim

8 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Tell me why we play home games in NT before crowds of little more than 10,000

If I told you the answer to that you might not like it - far be it from me to say why we play home games in NT against SA clubs. 

We are an up & coming team thanks to our commitment to player development and welfare via increasing investment into our Footy department- everything we now do is centered around every player reaching their full potential at the MFC irrespective of how they arrived at our club. We support all our players past and present and offer the MFC as a career option not just a playing option.  

We no longer care who we play, where we play them & what we wear - the past history has no influence on our current playing group. Yes, you read right our history is meaningless. We have an AFL approved CEO & AFL approved board - no elections needed - we enjoy the full support of the AFL and that is 100% reciprocal. 

We have a very bright future - Go Dees