The current zeitgeist of equalisation through the AFL is a good and noble thing. Many seem to disagree.
But punish the rich for being rich? It’s not going to help.
I’ve seen comments along the lines of “Why don’t we just have a rotation of the Premiership, then?” and “If they can’t perform they should fold or be relegated”.
I understand their view points and it is an opinion born of the Darwinian theory of only the strongest survive. This isn’t the way the AFL should be reacting, though.
Andrew Demetriou has been chastised in some papers for spending the AFL money on ‘fact finding’ missions through America and Europe.
To be honest there’s no better place to learn about equalisation. The NFL has a system that is working really well.
Granted, it’s based around private ownership, but even these millionaire bosses aren’t baulking at the fact that all clubs need to be able to compete in order to grow the sport as a spectacle. They put their hands in their pockets each year for those struggling sides.
Look at the Seahawks. A few years ago they were mocked in the streets of Seattle and called an embarrassment (I know this from a friend living in Seattle).
Then as the wheel turned they started climbing. Getting to a couple of wild card places for the play-offs.
Then before you know it they’re at the big dance and now have one of the highest winning margins NFL Super Bowl history. The New York Giants took it out a couple of seasons ago and now they’re hovering mid table. That’s what equalisation is about.
The English Premier League has recently introduced the Financial Fair Play rule which is there to deter the billionaire owners stepping in and ‘buying’ titles.
There are restrictions on debt and spending so the top clubs can’t strengthen their sides while decimating the lower clubs who can’t compete with the offers. While it’s not perfect, it’s a step in the right direction.
Clubs like Southampton and Hull are now sitting pretty comfortably in the mid section of the Premier League table, while former powerhouse Newcastle are gradually clawing their way back without the backing of a wealthy owner using the league as a hobby.
Manchester United and Tottenham are slipping away. Who doesn’t like seeing the title race get altered after such a long time of passing the success around the top 4?
The AFL has spotted this widening gap before it’s too late.
While the league isn’t influenced by private ownership, it’s still at the mercy of money. As much as the rest of the game’s supporters love to hate Eddie McGuire (and his team), Collingwood was the club that was sitting up at night with the lamp on in a lone room at Victoria Park trying to work out how to pay all the bills that were ‘past-due’ before he turned up.
McGuire applied his very savvy business knowledge and contacts to turn that around incredibly quickly, got his team the best coach and ended up in two successive grand finals. Any way you cut it – he made that club and has every right to defend it until his face turns purple… again.
Do we now punish them for reaping the success they have sewn?
They survived a huge failure in investment with their hotels that would have put many clubs on the back foot, but the Magpies took it in their stride. They now, more or less, own the Olympic Park precinct, which would be a huge drawcard for any player looking to move clubs.
Hawthorn’s Ian Dicker took the momentum of the failed merger with Melbourne (who were meant to be the money team of that marriage) and built them into a team that not only has their own suburb in the south-east of Melbourne but until recently had free run of the Apple Isle and lined the brown and gold pockets with millions in the process.
Clubs like Melbourne, North Melbourne, the Western Bulldogs and St Kilda are currently the minnows. Claiming a $1 million loss is a win in the scheme of things.
They preach viability and growth but will never really challenge the cash of the big clubs. But as Peter Jackson said regarding ultimate success, “I still don’t believe that the amount you spend [is the determining factor] – and I know there’s some suggestions at the moment there is – but it goes deeper than that.”
No doubt it helps, though! But he is right.
Port Adelaide swung it around with a good coach and an enviable team ethos. North Melbourne dominated for years on just an idea of money. Melbourne turned up to a grand final after battling possums for use of their gym.
The Dogs were knocking pretty hard on the door, even though they were paying for the privilege of playing in front of 15,000 fans at the Docklands.
I don’t think that taking money of the rich to hand out to the poor will solve much.
There’s a mentality with supporters of the rich clubs that these financial minions are happy to roll up to AFL House with the bowl in hand and expect their extra helping of gruel then happily racing back to the table to devour it.
The reality is no club wants to be getting a bigger portion of the pie, but it’s a necessity. You can guarantee that if the Demons or the Roos were in the top 4, pulling the crowds and getting their share of Friday night slots, there wouldn’t be a peep about the reduction of funds allocated to them.
On the other side of the coin if it all went pear-shaped for the Hawks or the Cats and they ended up floundering at the bottom with empty coffers (unlikely, but let’s suspend disbelief here) it would be their turn to get that extra 10-15 percent of the AFL funding.
No one can have a problem with that.
I think the cap, if it needs to be placed anywhere, is on intellectual resources. Seeing the Collingwood coaches box split screened with the Roos reminds me of before and after weight-loss photos – kind of similar but shockingly thinner.
Hiring coaches to serve as ‘Directors of Football’ or poaching another talent scout then given the title of ‘Talent Developer’, in my opinion, is where the problem really lies.
Rodney Eade can still coach or at least be a worthy assistant. If Collingwood don’t want him officially directing players, then they can’t invent a position to keep him away from other clubs offering him that gig.
I know he chose to stay, but it’s also because he had a role to move in to.
This happens across all the departments. Hiring two of the best sports scientists with alternate titles. Clutching on to former players by defining part-time coaches as separate entity.
I think that if a club wants to get hold of someone like Brendan McCartney when his time comes to an end, and their coaching team is full, they should go to the AFL advising that a new position is required and this is the candidate they want.
The AFL can then ratify if that position is an actual necessity and approve or decline.
As with many things, it’s not perfect. But if the AFL wants to have a more of a hand in the clubs to generate this level playing field, this could be a good place to start.
Floyd Calhoun
Guest
Probably still comes down to recruiting though Cam. North Melbourne were a force in the 90's despite their antique training facilities. Even worse than Richmond's. Unlike Richmond, they had the management skills to put a winning team on the field for years. You need to assemble a good team to assemble a good team.
TW
Guest
As I mentioned above in another post the new TV deal details after 2016 are leaking out. It appears allowing for inflation on the present deal the AFL "COULD" be looking at up to 2 Billion dollars for the next TV agreement. Does this include 18 teams - We have to assume it does. In the article below the comments by Kim Williams on the digital/internet side are very interesting. Read on-- http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/the-afls-broadcasting-rights-could-be-worth-1.6b-in-2016-20140217-32wex.html
Me Too
Guest
The fact is that the bulldogs, north, and the saints are subsidising the AFL. They were forced into long term deals to play at Etihad by the AFL at such poor rates that made it impossible to make the slightest profit even with healthy crowds. All so the AFL could buy off the stadium in as quick a timeframe as possible. The double whammy was that they were then given low drawing games times and opponents. The AFL would then use the resultant poor crowds as a reason to continue to give them poor draws financially. So other clubs wealth and power grew substantially faster and a new generation have grown up with far more marketing and hype thrown the way of the bigger clubs. For players, the rich clubs have the attraction of bigger crowds, more support, more marketing potential, better facilities, and better location. It will now take a generation to fix, if ever. First - compensate them far more for the money they have saved the afl. Give all clubs an even fixture (simply roll the fixture over each year). Give all clubs equal game time at the mcg and Etihad. I guarantee you the financial gap will close substantially within ten years. It's obvious to anyone, but the AFL have first and foremost put money generation in the short term as their goal for Victorian clubs to help fund interstate expansion. They also have a few bottom dwellers relying on handouts that, if need be, they can justify relocating or killing off. The only thing saving the clubs at the moment is the fact the afl can't afford to finance yet another new team and the current TV deal calls for 18 teams.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Don, Yes and yes.
Alicesprings
Guest
Although a new stadium deal would help its not a silver bullet! Say the saints and kangas get an extra $5m/pa, that still doesn't solve their problem. Explore new markets will be part of their solution in raising more funds. Will be interesting to see how the kangas go off field this yr as they are expected to do well on it! But at the end of the day a clubs financial viability shouldn't be affected by its on field performance.
Slane
Guest
They weren't arguing about a cap in player payments. They were arguing about Leigh Mathew's proposed cap in Football Department spending. That means the money they can spend on equipment, training, sports science, etc. The rich clubs now spend more than 20m a year while the poor ones might only scrounge up 10-15mil.
Big Al
Guest
Paul Roos came out during the week saying there shouldn't be a cap on spending but there should be a MINIMUM spend level so that there is a base for every AFL club in the competition. This would mean that the players have the benefit of going to clubs and getting a 'good' level of facilities from whatever club when starting off. If Collingwood want to spend more because they have more to entice players through the facilities then that benefits the club. It gives clubs another recruiting tool - look at Richmond getting better facilities. They are just starting to get some benefit through a better funded football department.
TomC
Roar Guru
It's interesting stuff. There's always a balance to be struck between keeping everyone competitive and giving everyone an incentive to be managed as efficiently as possible. I start to roll my eyes though when anyone talks about 'the level playing field'. Some clubs start with such substantial advantages that it really doesn't matter how well run the others are, they'll never match their spending capacity. Equally I don't think much of the argument-by-cliche style epitomised by 'punish the rich for being rich', or that sort of nonsense. Our tax system seems to operate pretty well on a similar principle. I'm starting to come around to the idea of a luxury tax on football department spending - if a club want to spend more than a certain amount they have to match that excess dollar for dollar with an amount to be put into an equalisation fund. Hopefully that way we can allow for costly innovations without leaving some clubs behind.
Cat
Roar Guru
When the inevitable collapse of gambling income into club coffers finally comes, what then? Far too many clubs rely on pokies and betting agencies to pay their bills. It is an unsustainable reliance, there will come a time when gambling is pushed out of sports advertising just as cigarettes were.
Don
Roar Rookie
Thanks Ian. So does that mean that clubs have to declare any "associated party" deals within their employ? Or does the AFL have the right to inspect clubs employee structures and salaries?
TW
Guest
Alicesprings, Your post gets down to the nitty gritty of the four Melbourne Clubs who are struggling. The Saints do have more potential in NZ over time - Glad you mentioned it. It appears the AFL is getting ready to begin talks on the next TV deal after 2017. We assume they will be going to the table with 18 clubs to offer the networks. Apparently all will be solved when the AFL takes over Etihad so people from Melbourne tell me. So does that mean the 4 clubs above will hang on until then with assistance.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Dave, The AFL salary cap investigator ruled exactly that happened when GWS signed Scully Senior away from his scouting job with Sydney, giving him a promotion and a pay rise. His salary now counts against GWS' cap number.
Bill
Guest
I am a western bulldogs supporter, and have been for 45 years, for as long as I can remember the dogs have struggled both on and off the field. Yes money is a powerful thing but putting the national draft into place has been the best thing for football that has ever happened. The so called good players now appreciate just getting to a club it makes the competition very fair no matter how much money the bigger clubs have got. Win and you will have money. Eddie is very good for football always has been and always will be even if he a Collingwood madman.
Don
Roar Rookie
I think a real concern for the AFL is the ability to pay player's families as part of their football dept - scouts, conditioners, administrators etc and go some way towards circumventing the player salary cap guidelines. It would be easy to do. Melbourne are employing Paul Roos' wife for counselling. What if a player's wife or partner was given a role in marketing? Does the AFL have the ability to scrutinise the salaries of non playing club employees? How many clubs employ player's families in the organisation? I'm not picking on Collingwood here but how hard would it be to pay David Cloke as a recruitment consultant? David could funnel some of his consulting income from the Pies back to young Travis - say $100k. The Pies could sign Travis on say $100k less per year? Or Essendon pays Tim Watson as a skills coach or football consultant. Some of Tim's pay then gets funnelled back to Jobe through Tim... Just saying...
SportsFanGC
Roar Guru
should of added West Coast to the list of premiers and also noted that every club in that list has won multiple premierships except Port Adelaide.
Cam Mann
Roar Rookie
Currently Melbourne share facilites and offices with the Storm and Victory at AAMI park. This is another reason it staggers the mind to see how Melbourne could be so bad. They have state of the art training facilities, access to the most succesful teams and coaches in Rugby League and the biggest Football side in the country... but none of it transfers!
andyincanberra
Guest
Another thought. Maybe some of these smaller clubs need to 'band together'. Rather than duplicating resources accross a number of different clubs, can they pool their resources, and possibly include the Storm, the Victory or the Heart, and invest in facilities that can be shared by a number of clubs?
Franko
Guest
Luxury Tax is the answer. For every dollar over $X of football club department spend, you pay another to a pot. The pot is then distributed among the clubs that have spent the least. Collingwood can then spend $200m if they like, but a further $100m will have to be paid out to rivals, leave it for them to decide what is best.
Cam Mann
Roar Rookie
Precisely. The rich clubs should be offering more money to get the best people in the top jobs. That’s their benefit of having the money. However they shouldn’t be allowed the top two or three people in a specific field. That experience and knowledge is what needs to be spread around. Innovation won’t be stifled, if anything it should be going up as the level of competition rises.
andyincanberra
Guest
I see what you're saying, but I'll contend that there are some advantages that money CAN buy. Look at Collingwood's training and recovery equipment, they have their own hypobaric chamber so players can recover from injuries at an increased rate. Carlton have biomechanical modelling facilities to identify inefficiencies in player techniques. Money brings access to things like overseas medical specialists. These are advantages that no amount of creative thinking or hard graft can substitute.