..they should be impartial, and grow the game.. ..instead we have a great tv deal, nine games a week, and a rigged competition..

_________________
..if you can't be good, be good at it..

How's it going to work with 12 teams?

How much do you think Hyundai and Mars are going to give Carlton in sponsorship if their logo on our Guernsey isn't being shown around the country?

Oooops without Port, Brisbane and Sydney we're [REDACTED] too

_________________
"The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent." Qui-Gon Jinn 15-05-2005

"there’s more chance of me becoming the full forward for the [Western Bulldogs] than there is of any change in the Labor Party." Julia Gillard 18-05-2010

..plenty of us say 18 is too many as it is.. ..thing is, if 'a club' fails, who says another club can't grow to take it's place..?.. ..and if our comp can't have enough stand alone teams, and needs continual afl assistance, and all the equality measures, it's not an impartial competition.. ..if clubs in certain areas need cola and so forth, and other benefits to ensure they do well to generate tv money, it's not even a competition at all.. ....WWF, sorry,, WWE is more honest....

_________________
..if you can't be good, be good at it..

Without 18 teams and $1b in tv rights everyone is going to need a handout. The thing is though, the AFL will be broke too.

Remember the VFL in the early to mid 80's?

_________________
"The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent." Qui-Gon Jinn 15-05-2005

"there’s more chance of me becoming the full forward for the [Western Bulldogs] than there is of any change in the Labor Party." Julia Gillard 18-05-2010

It's all exponential, logic says you lose a third of the teams straight out you lose a minimum 1/3 of the revenue BUT the product would better because you have far less spuds on the list and the quality of games will be at a much higher standard.

On the flip side of that, talented youth would look at the opportunities left and notice 33% less and look at other sports where opportunity may be greater diluting the talent pool. It is one of the strengths of needing a big talent pool to sufficiently fill and turnover lists. Cricket had this problem for a long time losing potential stars to other sports which has now changed somewhat by the riches and opportunity 20/20 cricket has.

I agree 18 is too many, in a National sport with absolute religion status in Vic/WA/SA and the need to have viable teams with some form of rivalry in NSW and QLD to help grow the game in those states 16 teams is a good number.

I'm a fan if Tassie having their own team too so for me losing 3 Melbourne clubs is the only way to get to 16

_________________
"I will rejoice in their anguish, delight in their failure and revel in our success"

We are Carlton, @#$%&! the rest !!!!!!

..and yet the game was grown far far more with less teams and a smaller tv rights deal.. ..in fact, the tv rights was built upon the growth of the 16 team competition with less teams requiring financial assistance..

..no idea why you're going back to the 80's vfl comp, totally irrelevant, why not go back to just the last tv rights deal 'era'.. ..better tv ratings, bigger crowds, more even competition, higher standard of competition..

_________________
..if you can't be good, be good at it..

My thread has been hijacked!!

_________________
dane's trolling again

Was it the Russians?

_________________
*(grow - fun - gah)

Yeah but whatabout your whataboutism.

Sleepwalker.

_________________
The only way for some people to understand is for them to be on the receiving end

Left wing moralists
In self serving denial
They shit me no end

Back to the last tv rights? With less teams, less exposure across the country?

Again, how much are Hyundai and Mars going to give us without national exposure when you.kill off Port and AFL football in NSW/QLD?

_________________
"The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent." Qui-Gon Jinn 15-05-2005

"there’s more chance of me becoming the full forward for the [Western Bulldogs] than there is of any change in the Labor Party." Julia Gillard 18-05-2010

Any reduction in teams will be in melbourne. One relocated to Tassie and five kaput. Dogs roos dees (but maybe they survive due name and history), who else. What about clubs with falling membership and one final win in 15 yrs? Less teams wd be better but we really need to do a hawthorn if we want thrive and survive, our complacent confidence in the power of our history may be little comfort if the last 15 years is our future.

Carlton has paid it dues regarding "cheating"*. 10 years of being a shite club is payment enough. The AFL should recognise this and give Carlton the same type of "loans" that North Melbourne gets.

If the "loans" (which are really financial gifts) that North get are of no consequence to them, then stop the payments. Or alternatively give Carlton the same type of payments so they can pay off their debt and also compete on an even playing field with the bigger clubs. North's debt is smaller than Carlton's by 3 million.


The AFL want equalisation - by making a stronger Carlton they will help equalisation...instead of this club always being stuck in mid-lower range of the ladder. Equalisation is enhanced if this club can become competitive and get some wins against the top teams. Less 17W/5L type seasons for the top teams and instead they will be 15W/7L which in turn helps equalisation.




* regarding salary cap cheating - anyone can look it up but it is a perception that Carlton is the only salary cap cheaters. It is generally overlooked now but Essendon* were accused of "systematically breaching salary cap regulations between 1991-96. They were fined $638,250".
Melbourne admitted to breaching the cap by $810,000 during the 1990s and Brisbane was fined $260,000 for salary cap irregularities in 2003. Carlton isn't on its own with regards to salary cap situations. Not to mention Adelaide as well with their $170,000 payment to Tippett.

The debt is still our own doing. It doesn't hold us back from competing with other clubs. Our revenue stream is fine. Could be better if we got our shit together and attracted more members, but debt isn't the blame for that. Its the least of our worries.

And are you really explaining to me that other clubs, including Essendon*, also cheated the salary cap?

You really need to understand what equalisation is before you rant here.

_________________
"The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent." Qui-Gon Jinn 15-05-2005

"there’s more chance of me becoming the full forward for the [Western Bulldogs] than there is of any change in the Labor Party." Julia Gillard 18-05-2010

I am sure you realise the history of salary cap cheating...but the general perception in the public is that Carlton is the only club that has cheated the cap. The lack of knowledge about other episodes from the public is mind boggingly bad.


You see the AFL would argue - Carlton revenue stream fine, tick, Carlton is ok.
North - revenue stream - not as good - assistance needed.

But that is isolating one statistic.

There are many ways you can look at AFL "equalisation" assistance...not just via revenue.

Another way you could approach it is - I could ask you a question. Do you think it is warranted that Port Adelaide and North Melbourne continue to receive AFL assistance in 2015?

Port Adelaide has more members than Carlton, massive gates, bona fide final team for many years to come. Is AFL assistance needed as of 2015? Perhaps they will in 2022, but in my view they don't need it in 2015.

North Melbourne - only 2 million debt, a cosy Tasmanian deal helped with AFL assistance, made a profit in 2014, a strong team that will play finals for the next 2-3 years..do they need assistance in 15?

Alternatively another question is - should Carlton pay money towards an equalisation fund that assists St Kilda, North Melbourne, Port and Melbourne?

You realise equalisation isn't about on field success?

http://www.footyindustry.com/?page_id=158

Annual reports for all clubs



See. You do get it afterall. Whats all the ranting and complaining about?

You realise our revenue is almost double Port Adelaide? In 2013 we made a profit (there's your first clue). Port Adelaide lost $1.6m and $2.1m in 2012.

Do you think that is sustainable without assistance?

How much extra assistance do Port and North receive from the AFL anyway?

_________________
"The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent." Qui-Gon Jinn 15-05-2005

"there’s more chance of me becoming the full forward for the [Western Bulldogs] than there is of any change in the Labor Party." Julia Gillard 18-05-2010

If revenue is the only indice you look at then that gives the AFL an out to ensure Carlton gets next to nothing in all their hand outs.

If equalisation was only about addressing or assisting clubs with a lack of on field success over the last 10-15 years Carlton should be about first in line for assistance.

North Melbourne - 2 preliminary finals. Carlton - 0 preliminary finals.
Port Adelaide - 1 premiership, in finals about 80% of the time.

So really revenue is just one indice- clubs can achieve success without having the most revenue. So if the argument is that North and Port can achieve this recent success without assistance - let's stop it then.

What I would like to see is full disclosure of such matters as

1) the distribution of extra funds due to signage rights at Etithad stadium. Do certain clubs receive more than others and if so - why?
2) promotional funding - who receives the most and if so why?
3) what are the reasons why certain clubs get more money from the "Special Distribution Fund"?
Why do Hawthorn (for example) get ANY money and believe me they do from this fund when the AFL has already set them up with a gravy train of money from Tasmania. This club makes massive profits year by year and gets extra money on top - why?

This is what journalists should be asking...not where Gil McLoughlin got his hair cut etc.

From your answer it is clear that you believe that North Melbourne should continue to receive extra dividends from the AFL. That is your belief and I see why you are arguing that, but I want to see more on what is going on behind the scenes. Why is Carlton putting money in towards equalisation for other clubs...I don't think this has been properly explained and is a strategic mistake. It is a bridge too far in my opinion.

1. Needs it own thread.

2. Yes. They should. But your question should be 'how much should Carlton pay...' Because essentially, all clubs - for some time now have agreed to handouts from the future fund and now an equalisation fund. Sure some eyebrows were raised - but the overall consensus has been that the AFL is one of the world’s least-equalised sporting competitions.

My only concern is that North Melbourne had the opportunity to accept pokie revenue, yet chose not to. They may have got a big tick with regard to their corporate social responsibility, but essentially they shouldn't be rewarded for refusing a revenue stream. My feeling is their money owed from the 2015-16 future fund agreement be scaled back.

But North's - and the other clubs - have KPI's to adhere to and can't just go and spend the extra money on anything they like. Most of it their extra funding has to be spent on increasing non-football capabilities, such as growing membership and sponsorship, than football capabilities.

I hear some supporters concerned that the money they hand over to Carlton will go to fund another clubs survival - which is pretty silly. You're handing money over to gain access into matches.

tap...it's worth noting point 4 from the competitive balance measures.

1. Move toward a ‘pure’ salary cap – phase out Cost of Living Allowance and Veterans Allowance by 2017 to move toward a more equitable salary cap for all Clubs; replace the current Cost of Living Allowance for the Sydney Swans and GWS Giants with a rental subsidy for each player on below average player payments. The rental subsidy to be paid direct to players by the AFL;
2. Increase payments to players – affordable increases in payments to players;
3. Greater control on football cost growth – curb industry football cost inflation through the introduction of a soft cap on non-player football expenditure. Clubs can continue to spend what they like on their football departments, but any spend over the soft cap will be subject to a luxury tax;
4. Enhanced revenue sharing – augment the existing Gate Levy by adjusting existing AFL Club distributions based on a measure of relative Club income for years 2015 and 2016; the reduction in AFL Club distributions to some clubs will be capped at $500,000 in 2015 and 2016 – but note Clubs retain all revenue they generate themselves;
5. Continue Supplemental / Discretionary funds – compensate smaller clubs for structural inequities – allocate uncommitted Club Future Fund monies to smaller Clubs;
6. Stronger accountability and performance management – help smaller Clubs which benefit from increased distributions from the AFL to improve performance, grow revenues and to be accountable for delivering on key targets.

The only thing Carlton need concern itself with is itself.

Actually Doc i wd applaud Nth for not accepting pokies money and wish so much of our revenue wasn't the proceeds of human misery. It wd be gd if no clubs relied on pokies. And how much revenue teams need to generate is artificial. The competition could survive if players were paid half as much, if there were half as many coaches, as it would if everything was doubled. I think Nth should have gone north when they had the chance to be the GC team. It wd be great if clubs didn't need large non footy revenue, ie pokies venues is disadvantaged areas. Agree with points 1-6, but fir what is essentially a local competition, most players get pretty good money. And any of the 600+ players who are on lists and can eke out a ten year career, if they are a tiny bit smart they shd be able to set themselves up for life.

You'd argue that our pokie revenue and our membership revenue are both the proceeds of human misery in recent times

Tap in 79 has been consistent on this and l agree with him.

I do not want to give those goatee mullet ferals from Port Adelaide one cent.

Did you enjoy the 100 point belting they gave us about a month ago?

" oh thanks for that spanking and btw here's a large amount of money that we would like to give to you to help fund your rise up the ladder"

Crazy stuff!