Melbourne and their $1 million profit

[Fishfinger]

I don't have a problem with the CBF helping out financially struggling clubs except when it gives clubs receiving it an advantage over those who are surviving on their own means. Such as Melbourne claiming they made a $1 million profit this year or North paying 98% of the salary cap and trading for high profile players like Thomson and Hay as quick fixes.

My thoughts exactly MT.
I also can't fathom how the Kangaroos and Bulldogs can have 2 veterans outside their main list when they're receiving CBF money. That gives them an advantage over Richmond and a few other clubs who are sensibly budgeting and only have 1 veteran outside. I don't understand why these 2 clubs can have a bigger list than us and think it's very unfair.

[mightytiges]

Relocation wouldn't work, for the simple fact that most of any Victorian teams players are from Victoria, thats why i didn't suggest it!

There are options, obviously QLD or NSW could have a 2nd team or NT and Tasmania could start a team.

If two Vic clubs merge, then that makes 15 teams so a new one could be sprouted up.

The Swans are a relocated club. South Melbourne, including its players and coach who were Victorians, packed up and flew north to Sydney at the end of the 1981 season. So it can work (eventually).

In any case whether Vic clubs merge or relocate, there still has to be 16 clubs in the competition as the tv rights deal requires 8 games a weekend. So if two Vic clubs merge, the AFL would have to put together a new interstate club from scratch like it did with the Bears. At least with relocation the "new" interstate club will retain some of its Melbourne based supporters as well as a bit of tradition while it finds its feet in a new city and starts to attract local support and more importantly members and corporate dollars.

The hard part is where?

Tassie despite being a traditional Aussie rules state doesn't have the size to support an AFL club as its footy population is split between Hobart and Launceston. York Park crowds when Hawthorn and St Kilda play down there are only around the 13,000 mark. Likewise Darwin is small.

NSW IMO will only be a one AFL team state at least for the foreseeable future. Outside the seaboard eastern suburbs of Sydney there is hardly any Aussie rules supporters. Rugby League dominates the ever-growing western suburbs . Similarly Canberra isn't viable for AFL with the Raiders and Brumbies already there plus there only being a small population. I spent a couple of months in Canberra for work/study back in 1995 and its a Aussie rules ghost-town. Just look at the Manaka's crowds when the Roos play there.

Possibly the Gold Coast is next but not for another 5-10 years at the very least IMV. It's alot bigger place now than it was when the Bears were there and it has a fast growing population. I read somewhere its 500,000. Plus there are a plenty of ex-Vics living up there (waves at Julz ) and Southport footy club is one of the wealthiest clubs in the land due to pokie revenue.

This of course is just speculation. The new $700m tv rights deal will go to 2011 so the Doggies, Roos and Dees are probably safe for the meantime.

[mightytiges]

I don't have a problem with the CBF helping out financially struggling clubs except when it gives clubs receiving it an advantage over those who are surviving on their own means. Such as Melbourne claiming they made a $1 million profit this year or North paying 98% of the salary cap and trading for high profile players like Thomson and Hay as quick fixes.

My thoughts exactly MT.
I also can't fathom how the Kangaroos and Bulldogs can have 2 veterans outside their main list when they're receiving CBF money. That gives them an advantage over Richmond and a few other clubs who are sensibly budgeting and only have 1 veteran outside. I don't understand why these 2 clubs can have a bigger list than us and think it's very unfair.

I might be wrong FF but I think the AFL altered its thinking with regard to the CBF and the salary cap in the last year or two. It use to be that a club receiving money from the CBF had to stay near the minimum of 92.5% in TPP. But now these clubs are allowed to use their salary cap quota under the argument that these clubs will have a better chance of being successful on-field and so generate more revenue in the long run off it.

That still doesn't make it fair when as you've mentioned FF other clubs like Richmond have made cuts to get their financial matters in order on their own. And I don't see the Roos being successful on-field when under Laidley they trade top draft picks away each year for mature recycled ex-Hawks.

[mightytiges]

Harris (Melbourne's CEO) said that while the club made a $500,000 loss this year before accounting for the AFL's competitive balance fund dividend, next year the club budgeted to break even before receiving the AFL dividend. For the next three years the club will receive a reduced equalisation dividend from the AFL of $1 million.

http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2006/01/17/1137466989210.html

This is becoming even more a joke. The Dees will still be able to claim the CBF even if they don't make a loss this year or in the following two years .

[one-eyed]

The Dees are once again using their dodgy calculators to claim a "profit"  .

MELBOURNE Football Club has recorded a profit for the third consecutive year.

While the club had predicted a million-dollar profit for the second year in a row, it said this year's result -- $790,797 -- was lower than expected because of several factors.

The club, which will announce its financial results at its annual general meeting on December 20, has cut debt by more than $3 million in the past three years from $5.5m to $2.1m.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,20884745%255E20322,00.html

[WilliamPowell]

The Dees are once again using their dodgy calculators to claim a "profit"  .

MELBOURNE Football Club has recorded a profit for the third consecutive year.

While the club had predicted a million-dollar profit for the second year in a row, it said this year's result -- $790,797 -- was lower than expected because of several factors.

The club, which will announce its financial results at its annual general meeting on December 20, has cut debt by more than $3 million in the past three years from $5.5m to $2.1m.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,20884745%255E20322,00.html

So in 2006 they have again made a LOSS but because of their AFL handout they've made a profit 

[mightytiges]

And with this "profit" they are going to pump more money into their footy department which gives them a unfair advantage over those clubs like Richmond who are trading themselves out of trouble. Why doesn't the AFL make the Dees use this "profit" to reduce their debt further so they won't need the CBF in the first place?! It's not like the Dees have been poor on-field over the last 10 years with 6 or so finals appearances.

[Fishfinger]

So in 2006 they have again made a LOSS but because of their AFL handout they've made a profit 

All in the wording, I suppose. 
They've made about 20 losses in a row. They've recorded a profit the last 3 years.

I'm at a loss to understand how they can brag about it as though they've done something outstanding.