AFL addresses inequality - article

[saintbrat]

And make no mistake, this is not the AFL helping some clubs to give them a chance against the better clubs - this is the AFL equalising an imbalance that they created.
They hand some clubs good draws and big games, on a platter. That's as much of a handout as what we're now going to get.

on that note caller to radio this morning was saying that because she went to 18 home games each year she should get preferance for G/F tickets--

well given most clubs passionates can get to 11 home games it would make it tough ifyou HAD to get to 18 to get a G/F ticket.

bTw - big Clubs response
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/r ... 1ktlh.html

[matrix]

no she shouldnt get pref to a GF ticket
ohh i went to 18 home games this year (must be a filth member)

so what
means you are no more of a supporter when compared to someone who lives 10 thousand miles away and donates the same amount of coin to the club in other ways.

silly cow

[bergholt]

If supportersa want some more detail, it's quite interesting, especially, how many Clubs are operating at a loss (p. 8). It's not a good look for the game.

i don't reckon it matters. footy clubs aren't supposed to make money. if you live within your means as a club then you're uncompetitive - paying 92.5% of the salary cap, minimum size football department.

may as well spend as much as possible, lose money and get the afl to bail you out. it's not like they're going to allow any teams to go under.

[saintbrat]

The AFL will establish an internal club services division at a cost of about $1.5 million over five years, to provide added personnel help for clubs that struggle financially.

Bulldogs president David Smorgon welcomed the new deal but revealed that battling clubs had not been able to secure a more profitable fixture.

''You would like a combination of both, but it was made very clear that the fixture wasn't going to be tampered with,'' Smorgon said.

He said the extra money would help the Bulldogs boost their football department. They had 23 people in this division this season, while the league average was 35.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/d ... z1Z6XlJV7F

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/p ... 6147533973

[Ice Wolf]

The AFL will establish an internal club services division at a cost of about $1.5 million over five years, to provide added personnel help for clubs that struggle financially.

Bulldogs president David Smorgon welcomed the new deal but revealed that battling clubs had not been able to secure a more profitable fixture.

''You would like a combination of both, but it was made very clear that the fixture wasn't going to be tampered with,'' Smorgon said.

He said the extra money would help the Bulldogs boost their football department. They had 23 people in this division this season, while the league average was 35.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/d ... z1Z6XlJV7F

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/p ... 6147533973

LOL, "fixture isn't going to be tampered with" well that's a big change then bet Collingwood wont be happy with that.

I guess they mean it wont be tampered with more than it is now and no attempt will be made to actually make it as fair as possible.

[Rosco]

But as I said, the AFL have gone too far now, and it can't be turned back. The only way now for them equalise it, is to give money and/or resources to the clubs who aren't on the receiving end of ANZAC Day matches each year, and 400 MCG games each season, and no travel etc. etc.

that's right, they won't go back. they can, but they won't. less $ does not look good. so we're stuck with our poor etihad returns until the AFL owns it, and we get "disequalisation" payments which some will refer to as "handouts" but which are, at least in part, compensation payments.

^ just read this http://www.saints.com.au/news/newsartic ... fault.aspx (someone posted this above), the club's spin is similar to what i've just written

[Ice Wolf]

I love the bitching from the "advantaged" clubs, if they hadn't spent the first 80+ yrs of the competition screwing the "disadvantaged" we probably wouldn't be in this position.

Look at Zoneing it was weighted heavily in favor of the advantaged clubs and when the demographics changed and it looked like it would favor a disadvantaged club (St Kilda) they made changes and in doing so they created a monster (Hawthorn) which led them to scrap it completely

Then the later the AFL Commission sells Waverley out from under the bioth St Kilda and Hawthorn screwing them.

When the AFL rationalised grounds it should have developed a Kardinia Park like ground in the South East (either Frankston area, Dandenong area or Cranburn area) and a ground in the West.

St Kilda, Hawthorn, Footscray should have been able to have their own outer suburb grounds like Geelong has

[plugger66]

I love the bitching from the "advantaged" clubs, if they hadn't spent the first 80+ yrs of the competition screwing the "disadvantaged" we probably wouldn't be in this position.

Look at Zoneing it was weighted heavily in favor of the advantaged clubs and when the demographics changed and it looked like it would favor a disadvantaged club (St Kilda) they made changes and in doing so they created a monster (Hawthorn) which led them to scrap it completely

Then the later the AFL Commission sells Waverley out from under the bioth St Kilda and Hawthorn screwing them.

When the AFL rationalised grounds it should have developed a Kardinia Park like ground in the South East (either Frankston area, Dandenong area or Cranburn area) and a ground in the West.

St Kilda, Hawthorn, Footscray should have been able to have their own outer suburb grounds like Geelong has

And who pays for these grounds. Impossible and impracticle to do. 2 grounds in Melbourne is plenty. Geelong have had government money into the ground because there are plenty of votes to be had in the area. I fail to see the problem with the G and Etihad anyway. And now we are getting truck loads of money all we need to worry about is a team good enough to play in the GF. That could be a long way off.

[Johnny Member]

And now we are getting truck loads of money all we need to worry about is a team good enough to play in the GF. That could be a long way off.

Of course it could be a long way off.

There are 18 teams, and every one of them can't be in the GF every year.

As per the AFL system, we've had our chance, and now we will struggle to hold a competitive list together. Meanwhile, again as per the AFL system, other clubs have been building whilst we've been in Grand Finals, and they'll go past us.

That's normal. It's not a failure or a stuff up for that to happen. It happens to everyone, because it's meant to.


The most important part of this, is that fans should never have to barrack for their club off-field. Not these days with how the AFL is run.

If you're selling an entertainment product, you can't sell a bunch of emotional stress with it. Especially when the AFL system makes it impossible for some clubs to compete.

The AFL created the monster, and now they're finally doing the right thing (almost) by evening up the ridiculous imbalance and uneven playing field that they created.


The fact is, that some clubs will still have a 5-10% advantage on-field due to the fixture. It's a bitter pill to swallow when in a Grand Final, you Draw with a team that has been handed a far easier fixture than you. It makes you wonder whether or not a free kick in the fixture each year might actually gain a team a mere 1 point advantage. Infact, I think everyone knows damn well that it does.

Being the best team doesn't matter. You need to be about 10% better than some teams, to make up for the advantage they're handed by the AFL before the season even begins.

That's a disgrace, and really it's farcical. Laughable really. It's a amzing that people can passionately follow a sport and take it seriously when the league itself give certain clubs an advantage every single year!

But anyway, if they're not going to change that and leave the competition as flawed as it is - they're at least giving the other clubs some cash to maintain some sort of competitiveness.

It's also good for the fans to not have to stress about their club's off-field situation.

They can just enjoy the entertainment product.

[Ice Wolf]

I love the bitching from the "advantaged" clubs, if they hadn't spent the first 80+ yrs of the competition screwing the "disadvantaged" we probably wouldn't be in this position.

Look at Zoneing it was weighted heavily in favor of the advantaged clubs and when the demographics changed and it looked like it would favor a disadvantaged club (St Kilda) they made changes and in doing so they created a monster (Hawthorn) which led them to scrap it completely

Then the later the AFL Commission sells Waverley out from under the bioth St Kilda and Hawthorn screwing them.

When the AFL rationalised grounds it should have developed a Kardinia Park like ground in the South East (either Frankston area, Dandenong area or Cranburn area) and a ground in the West.

St Kilda, Hawthorn, Footscray should have been able to have their own outer suburb grounds like Geelong has

And who pays for these grounds. Impossible and impracticle to do. 2 grounds in Melbourne is plenty. Geelong have had government money into the ground because there are plenty of votes to be had in the area. I fail to see the problem with the G and Etihad anyway. And now we are getting truck loads of money all we need to worry about is a team good enough to play in the GF. That could be a long way off.

Note the words "When" & "Should have"

For what its worth they should still build a Kardinia Park type stadium in the South East.

Caulfield would have been ideal location (Meeting point of the 2 major lines) except for the expense. No reason a smaller stadium in Frankston couldn't work.

[Solar]

wonder what non football income stream the saints will focus on with this money?