One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: one-eyed on April 28, 2011, 11:40:46 AM
-
Jeff's been in the news the past few days about "poorer" clubs and their need of AFL assistance to survive long term. This morning on 3aw he was asked to name these clubs and he listed us, North, Bulldogs, Melbourne, Carlton and possibly St Kilda. He then said only Carlton will get themselves out of debt and off assistance of those clubs. So apparently we are now classed as a long-term "welfare" club ::). Someone should tell Jeff what he then thinks the Fighting Tiger Fund is for ::).
Gulf widens between rich and poor clubs: Kennett
By Mark Macgugan
Tue 26 Apr, 2011
HAWTHORN president Jeff Kennett is concerned that a widening financial gulf between the AFL's richer and poorer clubs could mean some teams will never be strong enough to challenge for the top four.
Kennett forecast that within the next two to three years up to 10 of the league's 18 clubs - five Victorian and five non-Victorian - would be reliant on special assistance from the AFL to survive.
Read more at: http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/112398/default.aspx
-
LOL
Imagine that getting criticised by a club that gets thousands of members from signing up pets and animals who reside at the zoo and another 8000 or so that live in Tassie lol. Hawthorn will be screwed if the pokies reforms get up. Hopefully changes are made to pokies laws and them and Carlton can end up at poo creek again.
-
Jeff's been in the news the past few days about "poorer" clubs and their need of AFL assistance to survive long term. This morning on 3aw he was asked to name these clubs and he listed us, North, Bulldogs, Melbourne, Carlton and possibly St Kilda. He then said only Carlton will get themselves out of debt and off assistance of those clubs. So apparently we are now classed as a long-term "welfare" club ::).
Someone should tell Jeff what he then thinks the Fighting Tiger Fund is for ::).
BTW he should have included Port in there too but I digrese
Not agreeing with what Jeff is saying but what happens if we don't raise the $6 mil we want from the FTF?
Where does that leave us exactly?
From where I sit facts are we would still have a bank debt and interest bill to pay which means we can't invest in footy the way we want to (eg no stand alone VFL side)
I don't see us in the category of the Roos, Bulldogs or Melb - never have and as most would know I have not been as concerned with our "debt" as others here and in the media have been because ours is manageable. However, we have received assistance from the AFL over the last few seasons that cannot be disputed
So I think we need to undestand that if we don't hit the target we are after then we need to realise what the implications could be
:outtahere
-
If you read the article then most of what he says is quite true. While the AFL run protectionist policies of having blockbuster games played between the same clubs each year, allowing the same few clubs to play the large majority of prime time games, and signing off on lop-sided stadia deals then it will happen as Kennett predicts. I don't know what the solution is but if the AFL want to ensure the longevity of each club as it now stands then a good start would be to share blockbuster games around, pool all gate receipts from every match along with all television rights and all stadium deals (interstate clubs included) and then redistribute that revenue equally among every single club. Clubs would then be forced to raise any extra revenue from memberships and external (non-football, non-traditional) sources in order to fund their individual expenditures. I know this is a simplistic solution and in reality it would likely not be possible in that basic form but if the AFL are fair dinkum about all the current clubs surviving in the long term then they will need to stop kowtowing to clubs like Collingwood and Essendon who have too much power and say when it comes to the best interests of the game as a whole.
Of course, if they would like natural attrition to remove a couple of clubs from the landscape then they should keep on doing as they are.................................hhmmm, food for thought.
And as far as Richmond goes, the only way we can get an ironclad guarantee of our own survival is to eradicate our debt and future-proof our revenue streams as soon as possible. Thank God we have a board, a CEO and a viable plan in place, all working towards that very thing!
-
Our debt according to how its all been conveyed has already or should already be reduced by about $1.2 million - the footy department spend should be ok as another $1.2 million is already available for the footy department projects. I think with all the functions going forward we will go close to getting the $6 million the club is aiming for.
-
His own club nearly went under a few years ago.
Short memory
If that mob can get out of strife, so can most of the other clubs :wallywink
-
LOL
Imagine that getting criticised by a club that gets thousands of members from signing up pets and animals who reside at the zoo and another 8000 or so that live in Tassie lol. Hawthorn will be screwed if the pokies reforms get up. Hopefully changes are made to pokies laws and them and Carlton can end up at poo creek again.
Couldn't happen to any nicer clubs...
-
His own club nearly went under a few years ago.
Short memory
If that mob can get out of strife, so can most of the other clubs :wallywink
True FNM but Hawks got out of strife because of their Tassie deal. With good management $5 mil a year would clear the decks for alot of clubs
-
His own club nearly went under a few years ago.
Short memory
If that mob can get out of strife, so can most of the other clubs :wallywink
True FNM but Hawks got out of strife because of their Tassie deal. With good management $5 mil a year would clear the decks for alot of clubs
Yep thats why he was worried about kangaroo's moving into there Tassie turf. Get a peice of the hawks pie (money).
I can see alot of hawks members jumping off in a few years once there team is on the slide and out of final contention.
-
There's an element of truth to what he says...
I really hope we have bottomed out and are now on the up like it seems. If the FTF plan runs true, by seasons end we'll have training facilities to match the best, no debt, an increasing footy department as well as an improving outfit on field. This should in theory equate to more members, more spectators, bigger TV audience which then puts us in a position of power in 2 years time when we are renogatiating our sponsorship deals - we can bend over our sponsors for a better return and then walla back in business as a strong AFL club
easy as that hey? :laugh:
-
There's an element of truth to what he says...
I really hope we have bottomed out and are now on the up like it seems. If the FTF plan runs true, by seasons end we'll have training facilities to match the best, no debt, an increasing footy department as well as an improving outfit on field. This should in theory equate to more members, more spectators, bigger TV audience which then puts us in a position of power in 2 years time when we are renogatiating our sponsorship deals - we can bend over our sponsors for a better return and then walla back in business as a strong AFL club
easy as that hey? :laugh:
And in the end we keep our home games at home unlike a certain feathered team.
-
True FNM but Hawks got out of strife because of their Tassie deal. With good management $5 mil a year would clear the decks for alot of clubs
Plus the Waverley deal.
They got $4.5m @ $900,000 a year for 5 years for having to relocate from Arctic Park to the MCG. I still shake my head in disbelief.
I think they also get cash for poor stadia deals. If it's because they play games in Tassie then I've got no idea how they qualify seeing it's their choice to play there and for the $5m.
-
I think they also get cash for poor stadia deals.
Dont think that's right Fish - I dont' think they get anything for stadia deals now
-
The Hawks have been a reasonably well run club off field for many years. Waverley Park cost them $1, they pioneered a lot of the current corporate entertainment at the football (whether you like it or not, it generates great income) and the Tassie deal has been a stroke of genius.
Whether you like them or not, they are a well run club off field, have great cash flow and make serious coin.
I think the Hawks of today are a good example of how strong the Tigers could be in 5-7 years with some prudent financial management, on field success and a slightly more creative approach to revenue/sponsorship raising.
-
Lookalike?
(http://www.abc.net.au/innovation/vicbushfires/images/the_honour_m1747540.jpg)
(http://images.wikia.com/alf/images/6/62/ALF.jpg)
-
I think the Hawks of today are a good example of how strong the Tigers could be in 5-7 years with some prudent financial management, on field success and a slightly more creative approach to revenue/sponsorship raising.
Spot on
-
I think the Hawks of today are a good example of how strong the Tigers could be in 5-7 years with some prudent financial management, on field success and a slightly more creative approach to revenue/sponsorship raising.
Spot on
we will be much bigger and stronger than the hawks could ever be or imagine
-
I think the Hawks of today are a good example of how strong the Tigers could be in 5-7 years with some prudent financial management, on field success and a slightly more creative approach to revenue/sponsorship raising.
Spot on
we will be much bigger and stronger than the hawks could ever be or imagine
it should be our goal but we are a long way right at the minute
How great it will be when we have $5-8 million+ of cash reserves
-
[Dont think that's right Fish - I dont' think they get anything for stadia deals now
You'd hope not. They were getting it when they first went to Tassie for the bucks.
-
[Dont think that's right Fish - I dont' think they get anything for stadia deals now
You'd hope not. They were getting it when they first went to Tassie for the bucks.
True but that stopped when they were guaranteed all the remaining home games would be at the MCG :thumbsup
-
We only got $400k from the special distribution last year and that was to make up for a poorer stadia deal IIRC.
Clubs that will receive ASDs this year are the Bulldogs ($1.7m), the Kangaroos ($1.4m), Melbourne ($1m), Carlton ($600,000), and Richmond ($400,000).
Port Adelaide will receive $250,000 but is seeking more and is under an AFL review, while the Sydney Swans will receive $779,000 as a cost of living allowance for players. The cost of living allowance will be paid outside the salary cap.
http://oneeyed-richmond.com/forum/index.php?topic=10809.0
-
been on the sauce has old jeff
(http://www.tvshows.de/alf/images/pictures/alf11.jpg)
-
Caro reminding everyone we have never gone to the AFL for special assistance.
It sounds so simple to talk about debt demolition for every club, but it is a crazy idea given that Melbourne supporters, who may have given up significant amounts of their own future funds to help save their club, might well question the fairness of such timing. As might St Kilda and Richmond - clubs without massive sums of money yet who have never gone to the AFL for special assistance. And that's not to mention the wealthy clubs who weren't so wealthy 10 or 15 years ago but have worked hard to achieve some success off the field.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/let-the-clubs-prosper-20110429-1e135.html#ixzz1Kw6D7YeK
-
LOL
Imagine that getting criticised by a club that gets thousands of members from signing up pets and animals who reside at the zoo and another 8000 or so that live in Tassie lol.
isn't it the same thing?
-
Re: Hawthorn: it helped the bottom line when their former president would plough in up to a $1m a year to make their annual reports show consecutive profits :whistle.
IIRC the $400k we receive from the AFL is to make up for the discrepancies in the fixture and stadia deals. It isn't "assistance" to prop the club up. The only "assistance" from the AFL I can remember was/is a non-monetary one of going guarantor for us so the bank would loan us the $4m in the early 00s that we are now trying to eliminate ourselves via the Fighting Tiger Fund. Even back in the SOS days we didn't run to the VFL/AFL as we raised $800k ourselves and then used the $200k all clubs received from Adelaide's licence fee to save ourselves.
-
LOL
Imagine that getting criticised by a club that gets thousands of members from signing up pets and animals who reside at the zoo and another 8000 or so that live in Tassie lol.
isn't it the same thing?
not quite... most pets only have one head.
-
LOL
Imagine that getting criticised by a club that gets thousands of members from signing up pets and animals who reside at the zoo and another 8000 or so that live in Tassie lol.
isn't it the same thing?
not quite... most pets only have one head.
Unless they're Tasmanian
-
C'mon lads, keep it clean....... ;D