Paul Gardner statement

[Yencks 8]

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/com...5E20322,00.html

Everyclub gets funding one way or another its just that we get it in the form of a special distribution from the AFL....once again "on ya Paul!" and get up the good work...realistic not unrealistic aka brayshaw

[rumpole 537]

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/com...5E20322,00.html

Everyclub gets funding one way or another its just that we get it in the form of a special distribution from the AFL....once again "on ya Paul!" and get up the good work...realistic not unrealistic aka brayshaw

Agreed. However, the fact that clubs are getting special distributions or handouts or whatever we want to call them should not mean that we don't work harder than ever to ensure we don't get into the mess that North Melbourne is in ATM.

[sylvinator 96]

Agreed. However, the fact that clubs are getting special distributions or handouts or whatever we want to call them should not mean that we don't work harder than ever to ensure we don't get into the mess that North Melbourne is in ATM.

That is obvious though. gardner and his team are obviously working as hard as possible to make as financially strong.

we have payed off millions off our debts in the last 3 years. this year we didn't make the 1million profit, but that was only bc we lost 500,000 in unexpected player payments (due to rediculous injuries specifically to players who get paid no matter if they are on the field or not), and was certainly not helped by our miserable on field performances.

i think Gardner has got us into a situation where if we are competative on field, and there are no disasters, we will be recording over 1 million profit every single year.

that means that within 3 years we will have no debts left.

in 2-3 years: No debts plus a first class training facility at olympic park sharing with the magpies!

that, together with the fact we have the richest history of any afl club, and also the fact our name in MelbourneFC, means that i have confidence we are in a strong position to never have to merge or be shipped off to the goldcoast.

the 1 million 'handout' from the afl, is simply a compensation for not being given the same television coverage or friday night games than other clubs. as Gardner said, EVERY club has help from the afl in some form, this is just ours.

[Hards 2]

It's great that it appears we're heading in the right direction financially, but I'm not so sure I would have said anything about the MCG being a problem for us (no need for reserved seats/no naming rights). It gives us a heck of a lot of other advantages (on field, plus our supporters actually turn up to the G, etc etc etc). I wouldn't be giving the AFL any reason to think we had issues with playing at the MCG - I'd be worried that would be turned into a few replacement games at the Gold Coast now that North are out of there.

Good that he's standing up though

[JACKATTACK 17]

PG is great, he is the voice of the smaller clubs, good on him for sticking his neck out there.

[demonfanjezza 1]

Keep up the good work PG.

[sickto 0]

Keep up the good work PG.

Are you kidding? No wonder you lot settle for mediocrity.

At least North Melbourne are stiving for financial independence. they may not achieve it but they are striving for it and stating that publicly.

What is our president saying? Na we'll never be finaincially independant so instead of striving for high goals we'll just sit back and take the hand out. Woe is us, we don't have a ground with reserve seating (mind you the MCC pay handsomely for every MCC member that goes through the gate on home match days) and we don't get off our butts to market ourselves productively so we deserve to be given money. Pathetic. And no we won't be able to compete while we have that narrow and defist attitude leading our club.

I'd like to see some pride bought back into the club and for us to hold our heads high and not our hands out

[Nasher 33,617]

What is our president saying? Na we'll never be finaincially independant so instead of striving for high goals we'll just sit back and take the hand out. Woe is us, we don't have a ground with reserve seating (mind you the MCC pay handsomely for every MCC member that goes through the gate on home match days) and we don't get off our butts to market ourselves productively so we deserve to be given money. Pathetic. And no we won't be able to compete while we have that narrow and defist attitude leading our club.

What a load. He said nothing of the sort. Creative interpretation indeed.

His point was that we have disadvantages that other clubs don't have and the AFL compensates us for it, but that other clubs get similar compensation for other things. Would you prefer it if these inbalances weren't equalized? Hint: no you wouldn't, because the club would go belly up.

His comments have absolutely nothing to do with whinging or surrendering. He is just trying to inform people of the accurate state of play.

[biggestred 5,237]

the thing is every club gets money from the AFL - be it tv rights etc etc etc - and these are not just your 1/16th share. not sure how they deal it out, but when teams like carlton are getting more money from that than the dees are inc our extra million, i dont see the problem. there was a thread with these details not so long ago - cbf finding it though.

so if you want to put some pride back into the club and not put our hands out - well we are just doing the same as every other club, arent we?

[Nasher 33,617]

the thing is every club gets money from the AFL - be it tv rights etc etc etc - and these are not just your 1/16th share. not sure how they deal it out, but when teams like carlton are getting more money from that than the dees are inc our extra million, i dont see the problem. there was a thread with these details not so long ago - cbf finding it though.

so if you want to put some pride back into the club and not put our hands out - well we are just doing the same as every other club, arent we?

Spot on Benno.

[mauriesy 7,410]

What is our president saying? Na we'll never be financially independant so instead of striving for high goals we'll just sit back and take the hand out. Woe is us

The AFL's goal is to maximise revenue, and hence profit and distribution to the clubs. If that means biasing Friday or Saturday nights with Collingwood, Essendon and Carlton matches, then that's what they'll do. If it means Essendon and Collingwood always play the Anzac Day blockbuster (or even Melb-Collingwood on Queen's Birthday), they'll do that too. The alternative is to rotate the Friday and Saturday nights, the blockbusters and the interstate travel, so that over a number of years every club gets an even opportunity. That would be a fair draw, but it's not what we have now, and it would actually reduce overall attendances and income.

But the fixture isn't a draw, it's a scheme of arrangement, specifically with the purpose of gaining the most attendances and television exposure. While this maximises AFL revenue, but it also leads to two unfortunate consequences:

1. Some supporters of richer clubs favoured by the draw, like Collingwood, get to think they are carrying the competition. They never factor in the bias in their draw when calculating bottom-line profit.

2. Supporters generally, and especially of poorer clubs like Melbourne and North Melbourne, get to think their clubs are welfare-dependent for exactly the same reason ... they don't factor the effect on attendances caused by the bias in the draw either.

If life was perfectly fair, we wouldn't get 15 Sunday games, one or two night games and travel 50% more than a club like Collingwood. But what all clubs need to realise is that the fixture, provided it is balanced by some sort of equitable distribution, is the arrangement that makes every club richer. Given this, I think all Paul is saying is that the distributions will always be needed to make the competition fair, not that we will always be welfare dependent.

[Bring-Back-Powell 15,240]

I hope PG thought this one through.

[mo64 5,881]

The AFL's goal is to maximise revenue, and hence profit and distribution to the clubs. If that means biasing Friday or Saturday nights with Collingwood, Essendon and Carlton matches, then that's what they'll do. If it means Essendon and Collingwood always play the Anzac Day blockbuster (or even Melb-Collingwood on Queen's Birthday), they'll do that too. The alternative is to rotate the Friday and Saturday nights, the blockbusters and the interstate travel, so that over a number of years every club gets an even opportunity. That would be a fair draw, but it's not what we have now, and it would actually reduce overall attendances and income.

But the fixture isn't a draw, it's a scheme of arrangement, specifically with the purpose gaining the most attendances and television exposure. While this maximises AFL revenue, but it also leads to two unfortunate consequences:

1. Some supporters of richer clubs favoured by the draw, like Collingwood, get to think they are carrying the competition. They never factor in the bias in their draw when calculating bottom-line profit.

2. Supporters generally, and especially of poorer clubs like Melbourne and North Melbourne, get to think their clubs are welfare-dependent for exactly the same reason ... they don't factor the effect on attendances caused by the bias in the draw either.

If life was perfectly fair, we wouldn't get 15 Sunday games, one or two night games and travel 50% more than a club like Collingwood. But what all clubs need to realise is that the fixture, provided it is balanced by some sort of equitable distribution, is the arrangement that makes every club richer. Given this, I think all Paul is saying is that the distributions will always be needed to make the competition fair, not that we will always be welfare dependent.

Whilst I totally agree with your sentiments Maurie, why did Demetriou throw the CBF back in the face of North Melbourne, and make it sound like charity, rather than a right? He suggested that the CBF was conditional on the club making progess to become self sufficient. If we have another poor year off the field, is our CBF allocation under threat?

[beelzebub 23,390]

Nasher..Maurie... well put and succintly so !!

The are various arguments in al this and no doubt some are coloured if not tainted, by where you are in the who shebang !!.

Its not a level playing field and is detined to never be so. It cant be if the overseeing body is proactive in concerted efforts to do things in areas when fiscal balance doesnt exit. In thse cicumstances its only fair to redistribute accordingingly. Instead of a 'handout; one could argue its "damages " for unfair trading !!

The point really about this retort by PG is not so much ( to me ) about equilibriums and fairnesses etc but more that he ( we ) wont be rough shod over any more.. We wont let biased and weighted comments by Jeff Shed etc to go unchecked. We wont be bullied !! For this I think Gardner and co ought to be aplauded.

Other fiscal arguments are just that.

[Little Goffy 14,750]

I think we can be free from visible dependency on the AFL.

It's almost a semantic issue.

It is a realistic prospect that we can be financially strong enough to not need the specific 'competitive balance fund' help. And then everyone will shut up about it.

[beelzebub 23,390]

The thing is...even should we get on better feet financially Id still stick my hand out for whatever the AFL will give...as for reasons mentioned above..its effectively 'damages' for unfair trading.

If the AFL want/need to give the big ticket ( sponsor generating ) games to others then I would want compensation, irrespective of where I am. And if the Shed doesnt want their's I 'll take their's too )

As long as their s any sort of money going begging from the AFL ...Id be pushing to get some. Only a fool wouldnt !!

[Rogue 585]

It's great that it appears we're heading in the right direction financially, but I'm not so sure I would have said anything about the MCG being a problem for us (no need for reserved seats/no naming rights). It gives us a heck of a lot of other advantages (on field, plus our supporters actually turn up to the G, etc etc etc). I wouldn't be giving the AFL any reason to think we had issues with playing at the MCG - I'd be worried that would be turned into a few replacement games at the Gold Coast now that North are out of there.

Good that he's standing up though

Strange interpretation of Gardner's comments - I'm sure the AFL won't come to that conclusion...

[Hards 2]

The AFL have shown that they'll interpret anything the way they want to.

I hope you're right and the AFL don't come to that conclusion.

[deanox 10,045]

I think we can be free from visible dependency on the AFL.

It's almost a semantic issue.

It is a realistic prospect that we can be financially strong enough to not need the specific 'competitive balance fund' help. And then everyone will shut up about it.

yes but i hope we take it as long as they will give it to us. an extra mil a year for the next 5 years will really ensure we pay of all outstanding debts, and actually start to have money in the bank. once we have money in the bank we can earn interest, we can invest in anything - pubs, pokies, shares, property, what ever the brains trust determine the best use of our excess cash. then all of a sudden we are making our money work for us. increased profits will result as well as the acquisition of assets, and this means the club will be in a stronger position than before. the key is getting out of debt, and investing the money for a profit[/u. once that happens we will be ready to challenge the big teams very quickly.

[beelzebub 23,390]

yes but i hope we take it as long as they will give it to us. an extra mil a year for the next 5 years will really ensure we pay of all outstanding debts, and actually start to have money in the bank.

Totally with you Deanox.. I cant understand the rush to cut off the cash . Yes its all marvellous isnt it to strut around saying we aren't supposedly beholden' to anyone but the reality is as PG srmises its really just another way of the AFL funding a club.

Its very clever of some clubs to play the psych game . They would love clubs on the receiving end to get all 'shitty' and stop taking it for want of imferred pride etc. Its just a gambit. Less money = weakened position = easier opposition !!

A lot of football these days is played out way before anyone runs onto the grass and a ball is bounced !!

id almost be saying.. what only a measly Million..wheres the rest of the blood money for stacking the competition ???

[mauriesy 7,410]

Whilst I totally agree with your sentiments Maurie, why did Demetriou throw the CBF back in the face of North Melbourne, and make it sound like charity, rather than a right? He suggested that the CBF was conditional on the club making progess to become self sufficient. If we have another poor year off the field, is our CBF allocation under threat?

According to the Age this morning, the spin from the AFL is that North Melbourne is different because they have private shareholders. Quote:

"In further moves, AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou told the Kangaroos that neither the league nor the majority of its clubs would support on-going special assistance to a club run by private shareholders. North Melbourne will lose its $1.4 million annual AFL lifeline within two seasons unless the club hands its powerbase back to its members."

Demetriou also says that given the board decision to remain in Melbourne, he wants the private shareholders to contribute more money, which they haven't to date.

[beelzebub 23,390]

Anything the AFL says or does with regard to the Kangas wil have to be taken with a dose of salts really. The AFL want to spank the Roos big time for being such naughty boys. Im sure Brayshaw wasnt naieve enough to think it was going to be straightforward and now he's in for the scorn and retribution.

The Roos are an awkward one for the AFL because of that very shareholder setup so they have a vested interest in 'redeveloping' it !! I sense we havent seen much yet ..these are just opening salvos !!

[Bruce Almighty 0]

if all our supporters stopped being tightarses and bought memberships, we wouldn't need any special distribution from the afl. In my opinion you can't call yourself a supporter if havn't got a membership. it only costs $11 a month.

[beelzebub 23,390]

Whilst I appeciate that many see life as simple as some ppl buy memberships..and some dont..thats a very black and white outlook. There area lot of people who might like to buy a memebrship but for any of a number of reasons they dont.

btw.. a normal membership is more like 13.50 amonth.. but thats almost irrelevent.

We've been over and over the various reasons ppl do or dont get a membership, but when it all boils down it will be where abouts on a pecking order a football membership is on a person's life list. There are enormous pressures on the average persons wage already and for many 160 might not be a 'necessary' but a ' wish i could afford'

All monies gathered do of course help but we all know we have never had high membership by AFL stanfards.. and it wont change overnight. To be honest if our survival does depend on whter 5000 ppl do or dont join up then we are just as mucha basketcase as Nth. The larger revenue streams need to be developed and managed.

But this is old terotory quite frankly. Instead of name calling those who dont...encourage those who can. As they say you attract more flies with honey.

Im happy to call anyone who follows the Red and Blue a supporter

[mauriesy 7,410]

It would be great to have more memberships. But the direct financial difference between our "miniscule" 27,000 members and Collingwood's "massive" 40,000 is only $2 million, minus some extra expenditure to service them (member packs, cards etc.). It certainly doesn't account for the total difference in revenue between us and Collingwood, and would be about 8% of the cost of running the club.

Theoretically, you could make that up in a few additional good sponsorships. Where the difference lies is in the momentum those members bring, and the extra marketing opportunity for sponsors etc.