Talking Footy

Raiderdave wrote:

typical D head response ..... hide from the issues in its game

take the grant away tomorrow & yeah .. we'd have some clubs fall over
about half I'd say ...
just the same as the VFL
thing is ... we have half the crowds
a third of the membership & turnover .... but are in no worse a position
& with a sh.it load more broadcast revenue.. will be in a better position by the end of this TV deal in 2017

the Shi.t for brains VFL fans in here keep telling us .. we're all that
we're sooooooo big
we have ssssooooooooo much turnover

as I tried to tell them ... that means nothing
& it seems the chairmen of the swines agrees with me

Raiderdave wrote:

Drac wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

oh
the Thuns get an extra 2 Million a year to spend
the gold coast is in NSW now is it ?

& the midgits get an extra 2 million ... plus another 2 million for the cost of living allowance .. despite all its players living a complex at breakfast point
paid for by the VFL


its a contrived .. manipulated mess tis the ol VFL ... & you reckon they'll look at measures to

.. even it up

good luck with that

GWS do not have $4million in extra salary cap. If you actually think that GWS have FOUR MILLION DOLLARS of extra salary cap space, you are no longer functionally ********. The functional aspect will have to be removed from the title of your medical condition.

Breakfast point rent was included in their salary cap. The players from the first year are moving out of the facility to make room for the next batch of draftees, whose rent will be included in the cap.

The Suns and Giants have higher salary caps because they're new teams that need to establish themselves. The Giants will have the concession longer than the Suns because they'll need it to keep their high draft picks from fleeing the toilet that is Western Sydney.

all I'm reading is but but but

like I said
the VFL is not interested in leveling up anything .... its a rigged .. contrived ... manipulated .. joke

Pete_09 wrote:

What does everyone think of Free Agency?

I am worried it will make bigger clubs stronger & weaker clubs weaker.

I follow the Lions & this is not goof for us

Drac wrote:

Pete_09 wrote:

What does everyone think of Free Agency?

I am worried it will make bigger clubs stronger & weaker clubs weaker.

I follow the Lions & this is not goof for us

Probably a bit too early to tell, but it certainly has the potential to be quite disruptive. Encouragingly in its first year it wasn't just big clubs that were the beneficiaries, with Port, Freo and Brisbane snaring free agents in addition to Collingwood, Essendon and Richmond. Also, some big clubs (West Coast and Adelaide) were among those that lost players to free agency too.

Time will tell.

King-Eliagh wrote:

Fuuuuuukkkk eh... The longest serving Chairmen in the game. Can't really go against that experience..."Half the AFL clubs struggling to survive" ... "A ticking time bomb" Looks like you AFL supporters shoulda been listenin to ol Raiderdave and King-Eliagh after all.

Geelong chief executive Brian Cook says expansion may cost the AFL more than it cares to admit, including the possibility of losing Victorian teams.

Cook told AFL.com.au that the Gold Coast and Greater Western Sydney clubs were set to be a financial drain in the long-term and that the AFL had under-estimated the cost of expansion.

“I think the AFL will probably need to underwrite Greater Western Sydney and the Gold Coast for some time,” Cook said.
“Probably for a lot longer than some people think and probably at a lot more expense than even the AFL wish to admit.

“For the new teams to be healthy in the longer-term it’s going to require a lot of money – a lot more than we have now – particularly if we want all of the Melbourne-based clubs to survive.

“I think in five years’ time, when the broadcast rights come up again, there could be the issue: do we continue to subsidise all of the AFL clubs as well as GWS and Gold Coast, or do we have to choose?

“I think it’s still the way to go in the longer term, as long as it doesn’t cost a lot of other clubs their survival.”

The current broadcast rights deal, which involves the Seven Network, Fox Sports and Telstra, runs until the end of the 2016 season.

“I do think that the financial model we have at the moment is only sustainable if we get a lot more money [from 2017 onwards],” Cook said.

“I think it’s going to be extremely difficult for the next five to 10 years.”

eelofwest wrote:

King-Eliagh wrote:

Fuuuuuukkkk eh... The longest serving Chairmen in the game. Can't really go against that experience..."Half the AFL clubs struggling to survive" ... "A ticking time bomb" Looks like you AFL supporters shoulda been listenin to ol Raiderdave and King-Eliagh after all.

The writing is on the wall for anybody with their eyes open King.

Geelong chief executive Brian Cook says expansion may cost the AFL more than it cares to admit, including the possibility of losing Victorian teams.

Cook told AFL.com.au that the Gold Coast and Greater Western Sydney clubs were set to be a financial drain in the long-term and that the AFL had under-estimated the cost of expansion.

“I think the AFL will probably need to underwrite Greater Western Sydney and the Gold Coast for some time,” Cook said.
“Probably for a lot longer than some people think and probably at a lot more expense than even the AFL wish to admit.

“For the new teams to be healthy in the longer-term it’s going to require a lot of money – a lot more than we have now – particularly if we want all of the Melbourne-based clubs to survive.

“I think in five years’ time, when the broadcast rights come up again, there could be the issue: do we continue to subsidise all of the AFL clubs as well as GWS and Gold Coast, or do we have to choose?

“I think it’s still the way to go in the longer term, as long as it doesn’t cost a lot of other clubs their survival.”

The current broadcast rights deal, which involves the Seven Network, Fox Sports and Telstra, runs until the end of the 2016 season.

“I do think that the financial model we have at the moment is only sustainable if we get a lot more money [from 2017 onwards],” Cook said.

“I think it’s going to be extremely difficult for the next five to 10 years.”

http://sportsbusinessinsider.com.au/new ... elong-ceo/


It is not just the Swans chairman that is worried guys.

The AFL might have bitten of more then they could chew with this bout of expansion.

Or from a conspiracy theorist point of view is this what the AFL has planed.............to kill of some Vic clubs and relocate them around QLD, NSW, NZ, WA, NT?????

Xman wrote:

eelofwest wrote:

King-Eliagh wrote:

Fuuuuuukkkk eh... The longest serving Chairmen in the game. Can't really go against that experience..."Half the AFL clubs struggling to survive" ... "A ticking time bomb" Looks like you AFL supporters shoulda been listenin to ol Raiderdave and King-Eliagh after all.

The writing is on the wall for anybody with their eyes open King.

Geelong chief executive Brian Cook says expansion may cost the AFL more than it cares to admit, including the possibility of losing Victorian teams.

Cook told AFL.com.au that the Gold Coast and Greater Western Sydney clubs were set to be a financial drain in the long-term and that the AFL had under-estimated the cost of expansion.

“I think the AFL will probably need to underwrite Greater Western Sydney and the Gold Coast for some time,” Cook said.
“Probably for a lot longer than some people think and probably at a lot more expense than even the AFL wish to admit.

“For the new teams to be healthy in the longer-term it’s going to require a lot of money – a lot more than we have now – particularly if we want all of the Melbourne-based clubs to survive.

“I think in five years’ time, when the broadcast rights come up again, there could be the issue: do we continue to subsidise all of the AFL clubs as well as GWS and Gold Coast, or do we have to choose?

“I think it’s still the way to go in the longer term, as long as it doesn’t cost a lot of other clubs their survival.”

The current broadcast rights deal, which involves the Seven Network, Fox Sports and Telstra, runs until the end of the 2016 season.

“I do think that the financial model we have at the moment is only sustainable if we get a lot more money [from 2017 onwards],” Cook said.

“I think it’s going to be extremely difficult for the next five to 10 years.”

http://sportsbusinessinsider.com.au/new ... elong-ceo/


It is not just the Swans chairman that is worried guys.

The AFL might have bitten of more then they could chew with this bout of expansion.

Or from a conspiracy theorist point of view is this what the AFL has planed.............to kill of some Vic clubs and relocate them around QLD, NSW, NZ, WA, NT?????

Was it planned or just inevitable? 9 teams in 1 city is definately pushing it for both the AFL and the NRL. He'll, some of the NRl clubs earn half the revenue of our poorest clubs and can't even afford a CEO or have no major sponsor. The crowds for panthers, manly, raiders are a debacle. Even many NRL fans believe there are too many teams in Sydney.

Raiderdave wrote:

wow
the chairmen of the Swines seems like a fairly straight shooter
& he is saying things are not good ... not good at all
of course the deluded morons in here will just stick their heads up each others @rses & refuse to believe its not all fairies & pixy dust from one end of VFL land to the other

but to quote a phrase to put some perspective on this .... this is
" straight from the horses mouth "

http://www.smh.com.au/AFL/AFL-news/coll ... 27p4g.html


SYDNEY chairman Richard Colless has questioned the AFL's commitment to 10 clubs in Victoria in calling for a wide-ranging review of the competition.

Describing the disparity between rich and poor clubs as ''a ticking time bomb'' the game's longest-serving chairman has called upon the game to ''stop pussy-footing about the problem and put it on the table''.

The AFL Commission and executive has responded to Colless's strongly-worded proposal and has confirmed it will hold a two-day summit before the start of next season to bring together the 18 presidents and chief executives.

It is believed Colless has already put some of the wealthier clubs offside by proposing taking profits from blockbuster games and distributing them among the poorer clubs. He has also raised capping football department spending.

Advertisement In a letter obtained by the Herald and distributed to club presidents and the AFL, he has written: ''It is not being alarmist to state that in our view more than several clubs could be considered technically insolvent without the financial guarantee of the AFL.''He described the Swans, this year's premiers, as ''perpetually one bad season away from serious financial difficulty''.Colless stressed yesterday he was not pushing for a reduction of clubs but wanted the AFL to clarify its position on retaining 10 clubs in Victoria. ''As a business model I'm interested to hear how the AFL sees the competition in five years,'' said Colless, ''not 30 years as they have looked at in their models.

''Do we want a team in Tasmania? Are we wedded to 10 clubs in Victoria? Is that set in stone because if not that changes the debate. Personally I would walk over broken glass to retain all our clubs but I want to hear where the AFL sees it.

''I'm not pushing any particular line but I'm not sure if the AFL has any firm answers on how Port Adelaide, Brisbane and the Western Bulldogs for example continue to defy gravity when capital and current expenditure in football costs continue to jump.''The poorer clubs are being seen as a drag on the wealthy clubs. Do we just allow the market economy to rule and everyone take care of their own or do we continue with the socialistic approach. Do AFL subsidies take away creativity?''

Colless's push for a summit was applauded by most fellow presidents increasingly frustrated at attending AFL ''information sessions'' rather than debating the growing concerns over the games lopsided structure - a structure Colless warned in his letter would ''ultimately have an adverse impact on supporters, sponsors and media rights''.

''This is not a debate over whether we have one or two substitutes,'' Colless told the Herald. ''That is not something we need to be interested in. If we are to have a two-day summit without pushing our own agendas we need to put it on the table that half the AFL clubs are struggling to survive.''

eelofwest wrote:

Looks like time for another bailout for the WB.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/AFL/more-ne ... 6498100195

Another reality is the club's mountain of debt, put by Gordon yesterday at $10.5 million.