Full Review of the AFL called for by Swans and Hawks

[Adam The God 30,221]

On 10/16/2020 at 5:31 PM, monoccular said:

DJ.  I am surprised that you are a socialist.  Only socialists talk of government money which is a myth.  It is taxpayer money. 

Again, taxpayer stadium. 

Okay, I have to step in here. The French Socialists created the neoliberal EU and were neoliberal monetarists. 

There is taxpayer money at state and territory level because they don't issue the currency, they need it for revenue, but it is government or public money from the currency issuing Federal Government.

Federal taxes don't fund spending. This would be inflationary. Taxes place a demand on the currency and are used to control inflation, while bonds are issued to control interest rates. 

In 5,000 years the currency issuer has never put its tax revenue back into circulation. 

And this stuff is not left or right wing, it's just monetary operations and how the economy actually operates within a floating exchange system.

Edited October 19, 2020 by A F

[Dr. Gonzo 24,207]

On 10/19/2020 at 5:39 PM, don't make me angry said:

No the NFL don't play favourites like the AFL they give too much money to the sun's GWS, the biggest suckers saints who get the 3 nd money in the AFL, the broadcast deal money should not even be handled by those  corrupt AFL..

The NFL has a revenue sharing model, because they realise the strength of the competition is dependent on the strength of all clubs. The AFL instead pursues policies that favour the bigger clubs (eg with the fixture) but they don't then spread the revenue gained from that around. This has led to the widening gap between rich and poor over the last 25 years.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,207]

On 10/19/2020 at 3:58 PM, praha said:

I do hate to say it but privatisation may actually be the only true saviour and I suspect Sydney and Hawthorn will be hinting at that in some capacity. In that instance Melbourne would likely be saved given its relatively strong financial independence and history, which presents strong branding opportunities. Dogs appealing from purely an asset perspective. But North would be unable to find a suitor unless it seriously considered relocation.

GWS and GC may as well merge at this point, or at least each fold into Sydney and Brisbane, respectively. Brisbane could rename itself to South Queensland or even just Queensland. There was absolutely no need for GWS. At least GC had a strong aussie rules presence via the Sharks.

Privatisation would unfortunately lead to the demise of some clubs and a hit to the community but for the longevity of the league it may be necessary. I know some here will disagree and the long term ramifications of Privatisation may not be pretty but it is a deal with the devil that is perhaps inevitable 

I can't see a private ownership model resurfacing in the AFL after the debacle that happened the first time around. There are obvious downsides to this model as well (owners picking up teams and relocating them on a whim, teams being stuck with inept owners giving the members no power to influence the running of the club etc) Look at my team in the NFL, the New York Jets. They are absolutely pathetic at the moment and have been for much of the last decade. Most of that comes down to ownership making bad decisions again and again yet the owners will not sell as it is a proven money-spinner for them. Hell some owners don't even care if their team can win championships as long as they can rake in the revenue from the TV rights and reserved seat sales.

[Clintosaurus 7,843]

16 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Hell some owners don't even care if their team can win championships as long as they can rake in the revenue from the TV rights and reserved seat sales.

This also applies to the Glazers who own Manchester United. No ambition outside of the dividend each year.

[Gunna’s 2,104]

4 minutes ago, Clintosaurus said:

This also applies to the Glazers who own Manchester United. No ambition outside of the dividend each year.

At least the dividend would be greater with on field performance. There is a carrot to working harder and getting results. ?

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,750]

51 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The NFL has a revenue sharing model, because they realise the strength of the competition is dependent on the strength of all clubs. The AFL instead pursues policies that favour the bigger clubs (eg with the fixture) but they don't then spread the revenue gained from that around. This has led to the widening gap between rich and poor over the last 25 years.

I'm not sure that this statement is correct. I recall The Age ran a story a few years ago about 7 Victorian clubs almost being wound up in the early 1990s (or, perhaps, late 1980s) by the Commissioner for Corporate Affairs because they were technically insolvent. I realise that's 30 or so years ago, rather than 25, but I think the AFL has worked hard over the last quarter century to reduce the differential betwen rich and poor.

[pitmaster 3,544]

On 10/15/2020 at 8:47 PM, Diamond_Jim said:

 

Without Samuel or Fitzpatrick the AFL Commission is not the mensa organisation it used to be.

I cannot think of one thing Samuel did in his "public service life" that was a success.

He gave us Docklands FGS, a planning disaster without continuity or soul. 

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,750]

28 minutes ago, pitmaster said:

I cannot think of one thing Samuel did in his "public service life" that was a success.

He gave us Docklands FGS, a planning disaster without continuity or soul. 

He saved the VFL from itself. I know someone who worked with the Government at the time. If it hadn't been for Samuel and the work he did with the Government, the old VFL would have collapsed taking our club with it. 

[old dee 23,787]

2 hours ago, pitmaster said:

I cannot think of one thing Samuel did in his "public service life" that was a success.

He gave us Docklands FGS, a planning disaster without continuity or soul. 

He gave us two giant  supermarket chains with 75% share between them. Way too much power.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,207]

10 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I'm not sure that this statement is correct. I recall The Age ran a story a few years ago about 7 Victorian clubs almost being wound up in the early 1990s (or, perhaps, late 1980s) by the Commissioner for Corporate Affairs because they were technically insolvent. I realise that's 30 or so years ago, rather than 25, but I think the AFL has worked hard over the last quarter century to reduce the differential betwen rich and poor.

That was in the mid 80s and is the reason they admitted west coast and Brisbane at $4 million each. Realistically though while being "technically" insolvent the majority of clubs were not in danger of being wound up. Media rights boomed in the two and a half decades following which would have happened regardless of whether the AFL gave lucrative fixtures to Carlton, Essendon, Collingwood or not

Two clubs can make an argument for turning things around financially without AFL assistance - the Hawks and the Bulldogs. The Hawks did so on the back of two eras of success (70s/80s and 2008-15), selling games to Tassie and mega pokies deals. The Dogs did it on the back of 2016 and some favourable financial deals with the local council. Even then it is uncertain whether the Dogs off field success is sustainable.

I guess Geelong could be put in that bracket too however the same applies, a prolonged era of success and favourable financial deals with local cou cold and state and federal government's (due to having marginal electorates).

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,750]

13 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

That was in the mid 80s and is the reason they admitted west coast and Brisbane at $4 million each. Realistically though while being "technically" insolvent the majority of clubs were not in danger of being wound up. Media rights boomed in the two and a half decades following which would have happened regardless of whether the AFL gave lucrative fixtures to Carlton, Essendon, Collingwood or not

Two clubs can make an argument for turning things around financially without AFL assistance - the Hawks and the Bulldogs. The Hawks did so on the back of two eras of success (70s/80s and 2008-15), selling games to Tassie and mega pokies deals. The Dogs did it on the back of 2016 and some favourable financial deals with the local council. Even then it is uncertain whether the Dogs off field success is sustainable.

I guess Geelong could be put in that bracket too however the same applies, a prolonged era of success and favourable financial deals with local cou cold and state and federal government's (due to having marginal electorates).

Perhaps Hawthorn and the Bulldogs haven't received direct financial support from the AFL. But the management of the competition by the AFL Commission, particularly going national in 1987, is what brought in the TV rights revenue and increased sponsorship income which have benefitted all clubs, incuding Hawthorn and the Bulldogs.

Sustained onfield success is not, in itself, a magic panacea. North Melbourne was extremely successful onfield during the Carey/Archer/Longmire era and were unable to benefit from it.