AFL becoming EPL in debate over dollars

Ok, Jack. Apologies - that was brusque - but I thought a throwaway line like that was worth drawing your attention to. I wouldn't presume to guess if you've been on welfare before, let alone tried to take care of a family on it, but it's no party picnic. The idea that you can get on the dole and live the high life bears no relation to reality. So a line like that is either a cheap shot for a laugh, or a fundamental misunderstanding and misrepresentation of a lot of people's lives. It's in the same group of lazy generalisation as saying Asians all know kung-fu and chicks can't drive. I may not have commented if your article wasn't otherwise of a high standard, by the way. It's inventive and well written - I'll look forward to reading more from you. I just think you should honour the quality of your work by thinking about what you include.

You said, "Congratulations, that might just be the most ignorant thing I’ve ever read on The Roar." Congratulations, that IS the most ignorant thing I’ve ever read on The Roar.

@JVGO, nope, i have not misunderstood your post, have read plenty, and they are all written from the same angle, with the same intent. Quite comical that someone, would seriously compare the AFL with Goldman Sachs. If i didn't know better, you would think that RL paranoia has struck again !!.

"Why on earth would you want to limit the expenditure on players, but not on coaches ?" Because players are more important. While coaches are vital, and the best coaches can turn a team with good playing talent into a great team, players are the reason clubs win premierships. It's the same with most sports really. Leigh Matthews once wrote an article in which he noted that a coach's influence is greatly overrated. He's right, as at the end of the day, if you want to stop the wealthy clubs from dominating, you don't cap spending on coaches, you cap spending on players. "Are the guys who carry the footy around a lesser form of life, seperate but unequal, an therefore deserving of being paid less ?" On the contrary. They are a greater form of life, and are more equal than the coaches. Most stars are more deserving of higher pay than coaches- a few players are in fact better paid than coaches-, however the salary cap isn't about whose deserving or undeserving. Imagine two competitions. In one, the clubs can spend whatever they want on non-player related football department expenses, however they are limited on what they can pay players. In the other competition, they can pay players whatever they want, but they are limited in all other football department expenses, including coaching pay. In the first competition, St Kilda came within a ball bounce of beating Collingwood for the 2010 flag. For all of their Arizona trips and multiple coaches, Collingwood were nearly beaten last year, and this year, they are no certainties. Additionally, since the salary cap was introduced in 1987, there have been 7 premiers in both the 90's and the 2000's (IMO the ideal number of premiers per decade), as opposed to 4 in both the 80's and the 90's. Now, there were 7 in the 60's, so I'm not saying that the absence of a salary cap is solely why so few teams won flags in the 70's and the 80's, however the introduction of it has certainly played a key role in balancing the competition. If the second competition existed, I would imagine that the competition wouldn't be quite as balanced, as ultimately, players are more important than non-playing staff and facilities. In fact, many would argue that the recruiting manager isn't all that less important than the coach. "Either we have an all-in, free-market competition, or we aggressively try to ensure an even competition where the question is not how much money you have to spend, but how you spend it – and incidentally prevent clubs going broke trying to win a flag." I don't agree that it has to be either/or. I like it that when it comes to the most important element-players- clubs are restricted through a combination of a salary cap, draft, & list sizes, however I also like it that clubs are encouraged to pursue financial success off the field which results in their increased non-player spending. When it comes to socialism versus capitalism, I think that both are important. I don't think that clubs should be allowed to buy premierships, however if we cap all of their football spending, then clubs will lose much of the incentive to pursue financial success. As I said in my earlier post, clubs aren't businesses. Their only motivations are 1)win flags, and 2)survive. 2 is guaranteed by the AFL, so if you take away 1 (trips to Arizona, numerous physios etc...) you are punishing the more successful clubs and taking away their drive to be successful. Oh, and BTW, I think it is a pretty even competition. Yes, there have been some dreadful blowouts this year, however that is due to many factors such as youth being destroyed by experience, and there have been also three draws. Additionally, if you look on a year-to-year basis at who wins the premiership, who makes the GF, who makes the preliminary finals, and who makes the finals, it's been pretty even. "If you want the former, then dammit we can afford to put twenty two players on the field, so we should be able to put twenty two players on the field." Could you expand?

"Like dole workers paid to do nothing, there is no incentive to fight tooth and nail for every cent if the next pay packet is guaranteed." Congratulations, that might just be the most ignorant thing I've ever read on The Roar.

Amazonfan, Why on earth would you want to limit the expenditure on players, but not on coaches ? Are the guys who carry the footy around a lesser form of life, seperate but unequal, an therefore deserving of being paid less ? Either we have an all-in, free-market competition, or we aggressively try to ensure an even competition where the question is not how much money you have to spend, but how you spend it - and incidentally prevent clubs going broke trying to win a flag. If you want the former, then dammit we can afford to put twenty two players on the field, so we should be able to put twenty two players on the field.

Then what incentive is there for Collingwood and co to make money? Football clubs are not businesses, and as such, they have only two motivations to make money; to ensure their survival and to support their quest for flags. Since the former is pretty much guaranteed by the AFL, the latter becomes more significant. However if you take away the latter, then there is no motivation for clubs to pursue financial success. As a Demons supporter, I would love it if my club could spend as much money as Collingwood. However at the same time, I don't want to punish clubs who are able to attain off-field success by capping the football department (non-player) spending. While I think that the salary cap is absolutely necessary, and I wouldn't get rid of it for the world, I don't think such a cap should be extended. If football department spending is truly a problem, then the AFL can look at other ways to reduce the inequalities (perhaps help clubs with business plans), but I don't think they should remove essentially all motivation to be successful off-field by capping non-player related football department spending.

Weagles are already ManUre.

For sure Redb. I think Collingwood memberships might become the international default currency for instance. what could be more stable? Has Eddie suggested this yet? Or even replace the gold standard. Or what about a strategic partnership to help bail the EEU out. The synergies and similarities are enormous. Collingwood = Germany, France = Essendon, North = greece, Port for italy. There are expansionary opportunities here. Everyone has been wondering where all the money went. Tell Michael Moore that the AFL has it.

How is it a house of cards? $2.53b Broadcast deal. 660,000 club members in 2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Football_League 7,146,604 spectators in 2010. http://stats.rleague.com/ Docklands stadium, owned outright in 2025. More like a house of reinforced concrete.

"Picture this for a moment. An AFL competition where Collingwood, Hawthorn, West Coast and Geelong dominate every season, without fail." I'd make an intelligent comment, but too busy imagining West Coast forming the AFL's equivalent to Manchester United. Mhmmmmm.

Let's see if they can win two straight premierships first. So many people forget that if the ball had turned another way, St Kilda would have won last year.

Goldman Sachs cheated their clients, the people, and the government. Yeh, AFL is definitely similar to them.

Ha such a kidder JVGO keep 'em coming :)

"While it’s true that spending on training facilities, fitness staff, recovery, and so on is becoming crucial to winning, the answer is not to create some kind of Marxist overruling system. Like in life, inequity is part of the essence of sport and is what drives us to improve." Rubbish. The answer is indeed a Marxist overruling system, which the AFL calls a "salary cap". All you need to do to stop clubs spending their way in to bankruptcy is apply it to the football department as well as the players.

Maybe you merely misunderstood Stabpass. Australia hasn't faced a real recession for 20 years, who knows how it would play out if we did? During the last recession the TV networks were bought and then sold for massive discounts. If you haven't noticed wild corporate speculative expansion has resulted in financial catastrophe in most of the western world over the last 4 years. So the AFL has decided to embark on a specualtive expansion, backed by the TV networks. Good luck to them, but it may cost someone some money. As I said not much seems to penetrate to Melbourne.

JVGO When we talk of government bail outs, the government has already bailed out domestic soccer at the cost of over $100 million, and is on the verge of having to do it again with a review underway. As for TV stations, the AFL already recognises that the TV deal for the next five years will be the last of its kind. Telstra already represents over 10% of the money in online content, and the AFL is already planning to make that closer to 100% the next time round - and doing it quite openly. Either way, of the billion dollars the AFL and clubs manage to generate in revenue collectively per annum, TV rights only makes up 20% of that total. No one should be under any illusion that the demise of the TV network, as we currently know it, would hurt the AFL more than any other sport.

Hey I guess when the tv stations go bust we'll all have to go to the games... Oh wait, we do!!!

JVGO said "There’s no doubt that all the codes will survive" That not what you initially said, nice backtrack, with another sarcastic comment thrown in regarding Melbourne, which is undoubtably the sporting capital of this country, and one of the sporting capitals of the world ( BTW i am not from VIC). On the horizen there is always another bust and always another boom, the world is, what is has always been, doomsday scenarios are a dime a dozen, on this site the AFL is imploding daily, but in reality the reverse seems to be happening.