Author Topic: Richmond one of 6 clubs to have gate-taking levy halved in Robin Hood-tax (Age)  (Read 1484 times)

Offline one-eyed

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 100173
    • One-Eyed Richmond
Tax could cost Pies $300,000 a season
CAROLINE WILSON
July 27, 2010


THE AFL has unveiled a Robin Hood-style plan to tax the wealthy clubs in a bid to help the poorer clubs in a controversial increase in attendance levies under which Collingwood, Essendon, Hawthorn and Geelong would be charged an extra $1 a fan at the turnstiles.

The proposal, to be put forward to the commission next month, received a lukewarm response from the Magpies, who estimated the gate tax would cost their club an estimated $300,000 a year.

Fremantle, which has been included along with West Coast in the top gate-takings bracket, is already embroiled in determined negotiations with the AFL to be removed from the group of so-called wealthy clubs.

There is a $2 levy charged for every person attending an AFL game and that money is taken from the home club's revenue and put into an equalisation fund.

Under the AFL plan, Collingwood, Essendon, Geelong, Hawthorn, West Coast and Fremantle would be taxed an extra dollar a fan in a scaled increase over a three-year period.

A further six clubs - North Melbourne, the Western Bulldogs, Melbourne, Richmond, St Kilda and Port Adelaide - would have their gate-taking tax gradually halved over the corresponding three years.

Carlton, Adelaide, Sydney and the Brisbane Lions would all remain static on a levy of $2 per fan.

The tax is part of a significantly wider push to radically equalise club finances with the AFL increasingly concerned by the multi-million-dollar debts still being carried by five of the above-mentioned clubs, with only Melbourne having drastically reduced its debt through an annual call upon its supporters now in its third year.

Special assistance of $6.8 million in total is being distributed annually to Melbourne, the Bulldogs, North and Port Adelaide but the AFL revealed to its club chief executives last week that it planned to potentially triple its ASD funding under the new broadcasting agreement. It is understood the clubs were told that special assistance, which would be rebranded with a new set of strict conditions, could increase from 2012 to a minimum $16 million and a maximum annual $22 million.

That money would go towards debt reduction and increased revenue streams such as free-to-air advertising and other corporate and membership incentives, preventing situations such as that faced by the Kangaroos last Saturday night where the club baulked at risking a $20,000 fine by playing a footballer not named as an emergency and lost a game by three points that could cost it a place in the finals.

However, the AFL message to clubs was that the league would heavily monitor those clubs in their decision-making processes. The recent unmitigated $500,000 settlement with coach Mark Williams by a cash-strapped and AFL-beholden Port Adelaide being an obvious example of such a decision.

AFL executive Gillon McLachlan said of the proposed gate-tax increase to the wealthy clubs: ''That was one proposal put forward and we have looked at several scenarios where the gate is concerned. We've got to have a discussion with the commission before we reach any final decision.''

Collingwood boss Gary Pert chose his words carefully, telling The Age: ''Collingwood gave its opinion on it and wanted to know what the other alternatives were. The proposal came out of the blue and we are hopeful there will be further discussion.''

The Magpies are heading for a record aggregate attendance this season and under this year's model would be losing an extra $300,000 a year in revenue by 2012, more than half the club's forecast 2010 profit.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/tax-could-cost-pies-300000-a-season-20100726-10so6.html

Offline Stripes

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 4264
While I don't like being considered one of the 'poorer clubs' anything to help us get out of the hole that previous administrations have dug us into would be good. I can't wait until we have some/any onfield success to have the masses pouring through the gates.  :thumbsup

Funny thing is though, I always thought we had one of the highest average attendances out of all the clubs  ???

Stripes

Offline WilliamPowell

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 41143
  • Better to ignore a fool than encourage one
    • One Eyed Richmond
While I don't like being considered one of the 'poorer clubs' anything to help us get out of the hole that previous administrations have dug us into would be good. I can't wait until we have some/any onfield success to have the masses pouring through the gates.  :thumbsup

Funny thing is though, I always thought we had one of the highest average attendances out of all the clubs  ???

Stripes

You're right about our crowd numbers Stripes

I don't think it's because we are deemed to be one of the poorer clubs

I would think it has more to do with the very poor stadium deal we have (in comparison to say C'wood) at the MCG

All the Clubs listed have one thing in common: poor stadium deals

But the Pies shouldn't worry too much. In the MLB they have a thing called a "luxury Tax" that the teams with massive payrolls (no salary cap in the MLB) have to pay at the end of each season and it gets distributed to the poorer, smaller market teams. Last year my team the Yankees had to pay out over US$80 million on top of their $300 million payroll. Pies shouldn't sook  ;D
"Oh yes I am a dreamer, I still see us flying high!"

from the song "Don't Walk Away" by Pat Benatar 1988 (Wide Awake In Dreamland)

Offline bojangles17

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 5618
  • Platinum member 33 years
it is a fair system, if collingwood are to be favoured by rarely playing interstate and guaranteed Home games v ESS and Carlton and Rich in 2010 then they need to subsidise those clubs that dont play with a stacked deck...alternately they can have a draw like ours littered with Home fixtures v Freo, crows PA and WC and SYD...go figure what brings in the $$$$$$$$$$
RFC 1885, Often Imitated, Never Equalled

tony_montana

  • Guest
and then some ppl are against us playing in Tassie and reaping the financial benefits....

we'll never catch the richer clubs in revenue and footy department spend as things stand, some ppl need to take off the rose coloured glasses and realise this is fact. Its a vicious circle, we need success to get the membership and crowds up in order to increase spend on the footy department BUT without spend increases on the footy department we likely cant get ultimate on field success.

A Tassie deal where we get 4-500k per game would get us out of debt in several years and enable us to increase footy department spending in a big way which would put us up tere with the collingwods and adelaides of this world. But we're just meant to roll over for those stuffing gypsie idiots North bc the commies, I mean the AFL say so. I just can't accept it

Offline one-eyed

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 100173
    • One-Eyed Richmond
Richmond pays a heavier tax of 6% for stadium use (Australian)
« Reply #5 on: July 29, 2010, 04:25:07 AM »
Patrick Smith in today's Australian...

The Annual Special Distribution fund gets most of its money from the gate levy that was introduced some 20 years ago. It no longer adequately services the AFL in 2010. For example last year West Coast paid its levy ($2 for every adult attending a Subiaco game) of $610,000. Given that West Coast earned $18m from the stadium, it works out as a tax of 3.3 per cent.

Other clubs like Richmond, North Melbourne and the Western Bulldogs pay a much heavier tax. North and the Demons around 8 to 9 per cent of their stadium earnings, Port Adelaide and Richmond around 5-6 per cent. The unfairness of that formula is stark.

However taxing the better performed clubs at a higher rate is disagreeable to most. One club chief executive said it was the least palatable of five options presented to the clubs last year and this. The answer is to top up the ASD fund from central revenue which will get a significant boost come the next broadcast deal. It might mean a slight juggling of priorities -- the clubs have been asked to decide the manner and the timing of addressing issues such as game development, improvement of facilities, grass roots football and aid to the poorer clubs.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sport/norths-chance-at-tassie-self-help/story-e6frg7mf-1225898186487