Just hours before Newcastle Knights members scrambled over each other to throw their club at billionaire Nathan Tinkler, I found myself in a lively conversation with a member.
This young woman was the member every football club dreams of.
In her mid-20s, she is University educated and holds down a well-paying job. Her Dad cultivated her love for the Knights, may even have bought her first membership and she no doubt has plans to take some youngsters of her own to cheer the red and blue some day.
She has a long life ahead of her of buying season tickets, nice cars, clothes, homes and groceries. Just the sort of person that makes multinationals sponsor sports teams.
I imagined she’d be one of the first to support the new cashed-up, highly-competitive version of the Newcastle Knights that privatisation promised.
Instead, she said to me; “I just don’t know if it’ll be the same.
“The thing I loved is that when the team won, I’d won.
“I’d come to work and say ‘we did it’.
“It was my team, and it won’t be my team anymore. It’ll belong to someone else.”
Ten hours later, 97 per cent of Knights members had voted to hand control of their club to a single fan, who has guaranteed $100 million over the next decade.
She voted yes, too.
But I’ve thought a lot about her words since.
Can a club belong to a community if it is owned by an individual? Do fans of privatised clubs have less equity?
Every sports team has bills to pay. And many different people pay those bills.
For the Mayfield Alleycat under eights, Mum pays the costs.
For many clubs, from Chelsea FC to the Newcastle Knights to IPL cricket, a rich individual forks out.
But there are myriad other models.
Public floats, community memberships models and public/private partnerships too complex and numerous to chronicle here.
Then there are media deals. Many, if not most, professional sports competitions in the world would not exist if not for the money flowing from media companies as a result of broadcast deals.
Ponder for a moment who is bankrolling those teams, and who is bankrolling yours.
Do you truly think they own the team?
Do they possess your team any more than the guy next to you, top to toe in team colours, screaming abuse at the officials in between tooting on his vuvuzela?
Legally, there may well be an owner of the logo worn above the heart on your team’s jersey.
But the value of that brand is determined by a thousand factors – not least of them – you.
The sponsors on board, the players in action, the visiting team, the fans in the stands, the TV company that broadcasts the game, the commentator who gives his opinion, the coach with his post-match comments.
Each of these “owns” your team. Each contributes just as the man in the corporate box signing the cheque does.
Every element is vital. No players, no team. No fans, no team.
Look at the Gold Coast A-League team. Is a super-rich owner with a high-class team all that’s required?
No. Too few fans combined with a soulless playing environment and a pay-for-view broadcast deal and you have a brand without value.
The Gold Coast United model is the perfect example of how the business of sport differs so much from the broader business world.
Many is the billionaire businessman who has made his fortune in coal or cardboard, only to find himself ill-equipped to market and profit from the trade of hopes and dreams, hearts and minds.
It’s like this, dear fan, you may have a mortgage but your house is your home – not the bank’s.
Your company pays for you, but it doesn’t own you.
And no matter who is paying the bills at your club, whether it be the guy selling raffle tickets for the meat tray, an academy-award winning actor, or a bush front rower-cum-mining magnate, he does not own your club.
Ownership is in the hands of everyone who contributes, everyone who cares for those colours.
Take any element away, and you can lose the lot.
You own your club and come Monday, your team’s result, is your result, like it or not.
zach
Guest
$77m government funding in 150 years for the MCG which is home to 5 community owned AFL clubs, cricket and the Olympic and Commonwealth games compared to $280m for 4 privately owned teams at AAMI park, none of which contributed a cent to its construction. You see nothing perverse about this. Tell me, why is the taxpayer paying for Rupert Murdoch's infrastructure?
Patrick Angel
Roar Guru
The numbers I provided were government investment where information was available. Correctamundo for the MCG though the government investment was at 77 mil, it was mainly VFL then AFL (I was writing another line aout that when I got the notification). The AFL does great things for stadium development, but I was replying to this little gem: "Perversely they get less government support than teams which are privately owned by billionaires eg $280m of taxpayer money spent on AAMI Park, home to teams owned by Rupert Murdoch, Harold Mitchell, Geoff Lord and other moguls."
MyLeftFoot
Roar Guru
Paddy Boy You are wrong about the MCG. The Government has contributed barely 10% to the MCG upgrades over the past 15 years. Let us all be very clear - the MCG is a 100,000 capacity stadium because Australian Football pays for it. With Carrara - the AFL contributed about 10% of the capital cost - and has guaranteed all upkeep and maintenance in perpetuity - even though the stadium is available for cricket in Summer, and will be used for the Commonwealth Games bid. As for the Gabba - do you recall what the Gabba looked like before the AFL started playing games there? Australian Football subsidises sporting infrastructure in this country - and has done so for 150 years now.
Patrick Angel
Roar Guru
80 mil for the redevelopment of Carrara, 400 mill for MCG, 128 mill for the Gabba, two proposals to upgrade Subiaco at 235 mill and 450 mill (the latter prob won't be happening due to the WC going to Qatar), 100 mil for Football Park, and 44 mill for Kardinia. Lawyered.
Patrick Angel
Roar Guru
Less government support? Really? Have you seen the amount of funding that gets given to the AFL compared to other codes? Not to mention the fact that government overseas aid is diverted to try to get people overseas playing Aussie Rules instead of you know, drinking clean water and learning to read. AAMI Park was $190 Million government investment and meant for three sports and four teams have their home games there, then there's the money the Tasmanian government pays to get four Hawks games in Launceston (and the upgrades to Aurora which are over 20 Mill in government investment for four games a year and the 2003 RWC). Any NRL or AFL fan who cries poor on government investment is a fool.
zach
Guest
All AFL clubs are owned by their members - 600,000 plus throughout Australia. The AFL IS the clubs. They are community owned sports clubs, unlike the privately owned franchises of other codes. Perversely they get less government support than teams which are privately owned by billionaires eg $280m of taxpayer money spent on AAMI Park, home to teams owned by Rupert Murdoch, Harold Mitchell, Geoff Lord and other moguls.
Phil Coorey
Guest
I support the Red Sox and love John Henry with all my heart - the guy doesn't stop trying to make Fenway a better place to watch the Sox or making the team competitive in the very very tough AL East. So, I guess it really depends on the owner - I have no complaints as a Souths fan about Russel Crowe either - lets face it - if anything thinks most of the league clubs won't be privatized in the next 10-15 years, then they are dreaming. Nice article in any case - another great ownership debate can centre around the impending lockouts that are coming in the NBA and NFL.
FM
Guest
GC Bulletin's comment brings back memories of a certain TV station owner who, when challenged about the quality of the TV coverage said "Criticism? From who? You? Well, when you get a TV station, you can show it how you like."
Bear
Guest
Our Town, Our Team, Our Tinkler
Danny_Mac
Roar Guru
Exaclty, the way I see it, it is a win-win for the fans and Tinkler... the harder he works at improving profitibility and attracting sponsorship, the less money he forks out of his own pocket. Any business deal that can provide that obvious and direct return on on the work you put in is a goose that lays golden eggs my friend!
Danny_Mac
Roar Guru
If Tinkler goes broke, the previous ownership structure can buy back the club for $1.00
Aaron Kearney
Guest
Not quite right. He is currently signing cheques for debts of up to five million, which is more than Crowe's group paid for its share of Souths .There are also certain local and junior league contractual components. If the club continued with current income, he's be up for approx $35M over the decade. Obviously, he backing himself to prduce a more profitable club over that time which would reduce that figure.
skinner
Guest
Im fairly sure the those who had the casting votes will do very well out of the venture. But lets say that Tinklers $$$ disappear for what ever reason where does that leave the Knights and the Jets? I would like to think that there is some plan B if it goes pear shaped.
Chris
Guest
The strange thing about the Newcastle/Tinkler situation is that Tinkler has been given control of the club without him necessarily stumping up any cash. As I understand it, Tinkler has guarranteed the income up to $10m a year for ten years. In other words, he has only agreed to pick up any shortfall - if the club goes out and gets sponsorship to the value of $10m or over, then he doesn't have to fork out any money at all. And yet the club was happy to give up control. Strange. I'm not saying it won't work out well for the Knights - I hope it does actually. But it is an odd situation...
Patrick Angel
Roar Guru
It depends on the owner, if they have passion for the team, they'll treat you well and the team is still yours. If they are arrogant, condescending, etc, then the club isn't a club. It's more like having a CEO you can't get rid of, if they're good, then all's good, if they're bad, it's ten times worse than having one you can sack.
GC Bulletin
Guest
Some interesting points. There was a story in the paper yesterday about how Fulham FC owner Dhodhi Fahyed bought a life size, full colour Michael Jackson statue and decided to put it outside the team's home ground. When fans complained about it (and having seen the pictures it is a tacky, tacky piece of cr@p) Fahyed just said fans who didn't like it could "go support Chelsea or go to hell." Here is a footbal club with a long, long history whose fans are being treated with contempt by an owner who believes he can do whatever he wants. Personally, I hope to god this would never happen in Australia but when you look at some of the wacky stuff rich owners have done is it that unbelievable?? Also, there have been examples overseas whereby governments are loathe to provide money to stadiums that belong to rich owners i.e. "you're rich, you pay for the new stand etc etc Having said the above the Knights situation, where a much loved team was constantly struggling for money, was getting extremely tiresome and I believe they have made the right move.
sledgeross
Guest
I know what you mean Aaron. Try finding out who owns my football team Leeds United!
Jetto
Guest
It's true, the fans own the soul of the team. I have a real interest in the English football leagues, and I've always been fascinated by the community owned models (my old favourite Dag & Reg is supporter owned). Man United, Liverpool, Man City, Chelsea all retain the my club feeling, regardless of which particular billionaire is at the helm, but shoddy management will always be railed against. In Newcastle, the former benefactor of Con Constantine was disliked, and I put this into the shoddy management area. The guy can't run anything, his markets are a bit natty, his newspapers and buildings are pap and run-down, and the Jets had to catch flights on the day of their games, rather than have to pay for hotels overnight. Possibly, it's not who, it's how. And that feeling of how you decide if it's them, or us, and our club.