Swines Chairmen " VFL Falling apart"

[Xman]

I should have clarified. I wanted links to prove that grants kept clubs afloat, not grants in general.

And how was I talking about AFL funding? All I said was that many Victorian clubs were struggling and in fact they don't get funded by the AFL because all their money is going to where I said they were going! So clubs have to spend and they can't without getting themselves into trouble! No such problem in the NRL. We just aren't getting the money in to start with and that's why the general grants are there.

It's a well known fact all NRL teams except the broncos make a loss each year. Most make less than 20m a year including grants. How would they survive without a grant of 5m?

AFL clubs have bigger debt issues than the NRL clubs!

having debt isnt an issue. Having bad debt you cant service is. Almost all NRL clubs make a loss each year, therefore they accumulate debt and eventually wont be able to pay it off. They cant rely on the NRL to bail them out either.

[eelofwest]

PETER Gordon saved old Footscray's name in 1989 by rattling tins and creating a Barack Obama-style groundswell of what he called ''micro donations'' from ordinary supporters. In his second coming as president of the Bulldogs, he is also tapping into the well-heeled and reaching into his own far deeper pockets to ensure that the Dogs don't find themselves in quicksand again.
Footscray had what then seemed insurmountable debt of $1.5 to $2 million when this impassioned lawyer orchestrated ''the Save the Dogs'' campaign. Today, the club's debt is closer to $10 million, yet it is not facing the same existential threat. The wolves aren't at the Dogs' door.
Gordon notes that the debt the Dogs had in 1989 was equal to ''100 per cent of the club's actual revenue and this year's it's less than a third''. But the more pertinent difference is this: That, in 1989, the league was walking the Dogs down the aisle in an arranged marriage with Fitzroy and actively sought to reduce the number of [Melbourne] clubs. In 2012, the AFL has a safety net that protects the vulnerable - read small - clubs.

Socialism - not a word Gordon likes deployed in a football context - has ensured that there are still 10 teams in Victoria and quite a few outside of this state. When Gordon left old Footscray in 1996 and it re-branded as the Western Bulldogs, the AFL was dealing with the fallout from ''the Melbourne Hawks'', which was subsequently seen as the (failed) merger to end all mergers.

In the decade after Gordon's exit, every single club played in a preliminary final - including Richmond and Fremantle. Collingwood rose from ruin, Carlton fell into disrepute for several years. The Dogs were within a kick of that first grand final since 1954 in his first season of exile, when the Saints lost to Adelaide, Melbourne made a grand final in 2000 and was a regular finalist under Neale Daniher. North Melbourne, foiled in its attempt to take over Fitzroy in the year it won the 1996 premiership, won a second flag in 1999; Port Adelaide, later to prove the most impecunious of non-Victorian clubs, was premier in 2004.
The years from 1997-2006 were the heady days of football socialism. There was a competitive balance in the competition, courtesy of the draft and a salary cap that was actually enforced. But socialism had its limits. Some clubs were more equal than others, as the blockbusters and free-to-air television coverage confirmed. While the AFL sought to compensate by handing the poorer clubs a cheque - and by sending them to Canberra and Darwin - it could not control what clubs spent outside of player payments. So began the football department ''arms race'', in which development coaches would multiply, recruiting budgets exploded and the once humble fitness coach was re-invented as ''director of sports science''.


The clubs with money and smarts found ways to gain a critical millimetre of advantage. Collingwood, the heaviest spender in football, would not miss the finals from 2006 until this year. Sydney - a club without vast funds but which was consistently in the top four football budgets - would remain thereabouts and win a second flag this year without the need to bottom out. Geelong, with a home ground goldmine, became the Corio Bay Packers - a provincial powerhouse, Hawthorn, too, turned dollars into wins, while West Coast proved recession proof.
In 2012, the ladder is heavily biased towards the clubs that are best resourced; more worrisome, the Dogs are down, the Demons haven't played finals since 2006, North has muddled along and Port has become nouveau poor. This week, the fixture will hand Collingwood seven Friday night games, the Bulldogs none. If this is partly due to results, does anyone doubt that the Pies, Essendon or Carlton would be so deprived of prime time if they were holding up the ladder?

The new inequality, apparent for a few years, is suddenly a hot topic, with Sydney chairman Richard Colless raising the question of how clubs can be better supported. ''I'm certainly of the view that there is a reasonably direct lineal correlation between football spending and success on the field,'' said Gordon, whose club spent about $5 million less on football - largely excluding player payments - than the Pies and Eagles behemoths this year.
The trading and free-agency period exposed a troubling disparity that is seldom spoken about - the higher amounts that the weak clubs must pay to recruit or retain players when they are down the ladder. Angus Monfries is receiving around $1.5 million over four years at Port; Essendon offered much less over two. Chris Dawes gets a hefty contract from the desperate Demons, while Mitch Brown is offered $400,000 or more for four years by the Saints. Conversely, Brian Lake has donned brown and gold for far less than the Dogs were paying him.
The AFL is wondering how it might restore equality and fraternity, without ditching liberty. It has already revamped its funding models, handing more dough to the Dogs, Saints, North, Demons, Port and Richmond from 2012-14. The Tigers won't need it if they win games. The others will, no matter where they finish.
One proposal that has been raised within club-land is what has been called ''a luxury tax''. Under this form of ''New Socialism'', the rich can spend whatever they like on football - hiring a coach and career adviser for every player if they wish - but they would be taxed once the outlay reaches a certain number. If the Eagles' footy budget exceeded $20 million, for instance, they would pay the AFL, say, 25 cents for every dollar over that amount. The theory is that no one wants to stymie innovation, or equalise to the point teams lose any sense of individuality, but that, equally, they have to be competing on something like level terms.
Over the next few weeks, the US will decide which form of free market capitalism it wants. ''Communist'' China will choose its leadership and chart a new course at the National People's Congress. The AFL, more akin to social democratic Norway, is trying to navigate the next phase and maintain an egalitarian competition without killing initiative. It has already allowed the players greater freedom of movement - Kurt Tippett excepted. How it handles finer points of this new socialism has become the game's big question.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/AFL/AFL-news/t ... z2AXETsYlZ

this is exactly what I have been talking about. AFL clubs arent going into debt because they cannot service their essential costs. They arent like a number of NRL clubs which are without a CEO, dont pay staff super, or pay their players late. AFL clubs are trying to compete with off-field football department extravagance. Sydney spent 5 million less than Collingwood on football operations last year, with far lower annual revenue. No wonder some teams are feeling the strain! Clubs have realised that success on the field is related to off-field spending where there is significant disparity.

The AFL will address this issue one way or another in the coming years and the league will be safe as houses. Every club has enough revenue to more than survive. Unfortunately you cannot say that for many nRL clubs which just do not earn enough yearly revenue to cover their essential costs.

Sydney spent 5 million less than Collingwood on football operations last year, with far lower annual revenue. No wonder some teams are feeling the strain! Clubs have realised that success on the field is related to off-field spending where there is significant disparity.

Xman you have just contradicted yourself there mate, the Swans spent less then the Pies but the Swans Won the Flag.......

Anyone see a hole is Xman's theory here...

The Storm spend less then Broncos, Bulldogs and many other NRL clubs yet they Won the NRL Premiership.....

No Xman it is not all about spending money, imo it is more about building a great culture which comes from within each individual. Look at the Storm's culture and the Swans who are both known for having great culture from within the clubs.

[Xman]

Oh dear eels..

The Swans, an expansion club with a yearly revenue no where near Collingwood's, spent only 5M less on off-field expenditure like dieticians, coaching staff, medical staff, consultants, recruiters etc etc. They may have won the premiership but they need to do that just to break even with that kind of spending.

Thats my exact point, its got nothing to do with clubs making poor revenue, its about clubs reigning in extravagant and unnecessary spending whilst trying to keep up with the AFL superpowers.

The AFL will solve this. It may mean there is an "extravagance" tax were teams like Collingwood, Essendon, Hawthorn, Carlton, Westcoast, Adelaide etc need to pay the AFL a fee if they spend over 20M a year on off-field operations.

20M! Thats far more than most nRL teams annual revenue, including their NRL grant!

[Striker]

having debt isnt an issue. Having bad debt you cant service is.

Having debt isn't an issue?? Another case of not understanding business obviously!

[Xman]

having debt isnt an issue. Having bad debt you cant service is.

Having debt isn't an issue?? Another case of not understanding business obviously!

Do you have a mortgage? DO you understand anything about leveraging to invest? As I said, debt isnt an issue. If you cant pay it off its becomes an issue.

http://www.manulifebank.ca/canada/mbank ... t_leverage

[Raiderdave]

ah

I see the VFL'ers in here still have nothing to offer except pixy dust & fairy farts as solutions for their codes horrendous financial problems

gee
a spare 200 million would be handy ATM ....
we had it sitting here a while back .... anyone seen it ?
what ?
where'd it go ?

the midgets & the thuns

S.hit
we're F'd.............. [-o<

[piesman2011]

Easy solution is that the TV deal is producing an extra 100 million a year for the AFL and clubs, this is a major difference between 2011 and 2012. Some of this money is earmarked for clubs and 30 million or so would easily pay off all club debt. The problem is not really the debt but the spending that clubs are doing to keep themselves at the top of sports science and recovery.

[Xman]

ah

I see the VFL'ers in here still have nothing to offer except pixy dust & fairy farts as solutions for their codes horrendous financial problems

gee
a spare 200 million would be handy ATM ....
we had it sitting here a while back .... anyone seen it ?
what ?
where'd it go ?

the midgets & the thuns

S.hit
we're F'd.............. [-o<

Of the two codes the NRl have by far the bigger financial problems. It's one thing to watch and adjust your spending, but if you don't earn enough money in the first place you're stuffed.

[Drac]

Xman you have just contradicted yourself there mate, the Swans spent less then the Pies but the Swans Won the Flag.......

Anyone see a hole is Xman's theory here...

The Storm spend less then Broncos, Bulldogs and many other NRL clubs yet they Won the NRL Premiership.....

No Xman it is not all about spending money, imo it is more about building a great culture which comes from within each individual. Look at the Storm's culture and the Swans who are both known for having great culture from within the clubs.

lol, Storm culture. Cheat and then keep illegally contracted players?

[eelofwest]

Xman you have just contradicted yourself there mate, the Swans spent less then the Pies but the Swans Won the Flag.......

Anyone see a hole is Xman's theory here...

The Storm spend less then Broncos, Bulldogs and many other NRL clubs yet they Won the NRL Premiership.....

No Xman it is not all about spending money, imo it is more about building a great culture which comes from within each individual. Look at the Storm's culture and the Swans who are both known for having great culture from within the clubs.

lol, Storm culture. Cheat and then keep illegally contracted players?

If you can prove to me were the players and the coach new about these rorts i would love to see it....... =D>

So my comment stands great cultures are what win premierships in the AFL and NRL not just money alone.

Storm are known in NRL circles to have a great culture within the cluband players are always wanting to return to the club (Hoffman, Chambers, Cronk) and the Swans are known in AFL circles for the same.

[piesman2011]

Xman you have just contradicted yourself there mate, the Swans spent less then the Pies but the Swans Won the Flag.......

Anyone see a hole is Xman's theory here...

The Storm spend less then Broncos, Bulldogs and many other NRL clubs yet they Won the NRL Premiership.....

No Xman it is not all about spending money, imo it is more about building a great culture which comes from within each individual. Look at the Storm's culture and the Swans who are both known for having great culture from within the clubs.

lol, Storm culture. Cheat and then keep illegally contracted players?

If you can prove to me were the players and the coach new about these rorts i would love to see it....... =D>

So my comment stands great cultures are what win premierships in the AFL and NRL not just money alone.

Storm are known in NRL circles to have a great culture within the cluband players are always wanting to return to the club (Hoffman, Chambers, Cronk) and the Swans are known in AFL circles for the same.

On 23 April the NRL seized a secret dossier hidden in the home of acting chief executive Matt Hanson. The dossier contains letters of offer to three of the Storm's star players (Greg Inglis, Billy Slater, and Cameron Smith) and another unnamed player guaranteeing illegal payments in the form of goods from third parties. For one player with a $400,000 contract lodged with the NRL, the letter of offer was valued at $950,000, and contained a $20,000 gift voucher for a national retailer and a $30,000 boat. Other offers included a new car for a player’s partner and $30,000 in home renovations. The offers together amounted to $700,000 of which the four players had already received $400,000. While Waldron had signed all the letters of offer only Inglis and Slater had signed theirs, albeit the letters were written in a way that the players may not have realised the extra payments were outside the cap.[1][6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne_ ... cap_breach

Wilipedia is not the best source, however if true signing a contract where you are on 400K but recieving gift vouchers and boats on top of this would suggest that the players knew that they were involved in breaching the cap (if they had half a brain). The bottom part suggests that they may not have known but it seams very fishy to me, if they had done proper diligence or if their managers had done so, then they should have run the contracts though the NRL to make sure they were ok.

[Striker]

having debt isnt an issue. Having bad debt you cant service is.

Having debt isn't an issue?? Another case of not understanding business obviously!

Do you have a mortgage? DO you understand anything about leveraging to invest? As I said, debt isnt an issue. If you cant pay it off its becomes an issue.

http://www.manulifebank.ca/canada/mbank ... t_leverage

And AFL clubs can't pay it off! If your expenditure is outstripping your revenue you're in deep $hit! What school did you go to anyway, X? Red numbers is bad for anyone, but the bigger the red numbers the worse the problem!

[Drac]

The debt of most clubs has come as a result of investment. The Lions invested in their Springwood pokie palace, and have been aggressivley paying that off, the Bombers, Tigers and North went into debt to invest in new training failities. The Power have bad debt, but much of that is due to their stadium deal and rapidly declining attendences. The move to Adelaide oval, while not a cure, will certainly help. There is a fundamental difference between going into debt to invest in the future, and going into debt to keep your head above water.

[Xman]

Having debt isn't an issue?? Another case of not understanding business obviously!

Do you have a mortgage? DO you understand anything about leveraging to invest? As I said, debt isnt an issue. If you cant pay it off its becomes an issue.

http://www.manulifebank.ca/canada/mbank ... t_leverage

And AFL clubs can't pay it off! If your expenditure is outstripping your revenue you're in deep $hit! What school did you go to anyway, X? Red numbers is bad for anyone, but the bigger the red numbers the worse the problem!

Melbourne, one of the poorest AFL clubs just paid there debt off.

Club president Jim Stynes and CEO Cameron Schwab announced the landmark at a press conference this morning.

When Stynes took over the presidency in June 2008, the club had debts of around $5 million.

A "Debt Demolition" dinner last night wiped the last of that amount, with the club now likely to post a profit. It has been in debt for more than 30 years.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/AFL/more-ne ... 5901472857

The majority of debt in the AFL is owned by Collingwood, Hawthorn and Carlton, who have massive yearly budgets and easily handle their debt. As I said, debt isnt bad unless you cant meet the repayments. Think of the Titans with their massive debt. They struggle to pay the players. There are also other nRL clubs that struggle for support staff funding. The overwhelming majority make a loss every year. how are they paying thewir debt? Please show me an AFL team that has failed to pay their loans or made a debt every single year..

[Raiderdave]

Do you have a mortgage? DO you understand anything about leveraging to invest? As I said, debt isnt an issue. If you cant pay it off its becomes an issue.

http://www.manulifebank.ca/canada/mbank ... t_leverage

And AFL clubs can't pay it off! If your expenditure is outstripping your revenue you're in deep $hit! What school did you go to anyway, X? Red numbers is bad for anyone, but the bigger the red numbers the worse the problem!

Melbourne, one of the poorest AFL clubs just paid there debt off.

Club president Jim Stynes and CEO Cameron Schwab announced the landmark at a press conference this morning.

When Stynes took over the presidency in June 2008, the club had debts of around $5 million.

A "Debt Demolition" dinner last night wiped the last of that amount, with the club now likely to post a profit. It has been in debt for more than 30 years.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/AFL/more-ne ... 5901472857

The majority of debt in the AFL is owned by Collingwood, Hawthorn and Carlton, who have massive yearly budgets and easily handle their debt. As I said, debt isnt bad unless you cant meet the repayments. Think of the Titans with their massive debt. They struggle to pay the players. There are also other nRL clubs that struggle for support staff funding. The overwhelming majority make a loss every year. how are they paying thewir debt? Please show me an AFL team that has failed to pay their loans or made a debt every single year..

all I'm reading is but but but
the VFL.... tis falling apart