Author Topic: Competitive balance fund  (Read 1804 times)

Offline mightytiges

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 57953
  • Eat 'Em Alive!
    • oneeyed-richmond.com
Competitive balance fund
« on: September 19, 2004, 03:54:31 AM »
The level playing field
By Caroline Wilson
realfooty.theage.com.au
September 19, 2004

Tomorrow should prove an expensive and significant day for the AFL, but should deliver good news for the Kangaroos, Melbourne and the Western Bulldogs.

All three Victorian clubs are experiencing various degrees of hardship that would have sent normal companies out of business long ago - and they are not the only ones.

Between them, they will receive a collective handout of between $3.5 million and $4 million from the AFL's competitive balance fund following a rubber-stamping from the commission.

Those are the formalities. For the second time, the Kangaroos will receive $1 million, while the Western Bulldogs - whose annual handout now stands at $1.5 million - will receive AFL help for the third time, an amount the club has been unofficially assured of for at least the next three seasons.

Melbourne, too, has applied for $1.5 million, a sum it hopes to receive retrospectively, to cover its $1.5 million forecast loss for 2004, and be allocated again for next year.

The Demons, despite some scepticism among their rivals, have convinced the AFL their disastrous state is not caused entirely by bad management, but thanks in no small part to history beyond their control.

After the debt-ridden club receives some short-term relief, it will turn again to the Melbourne Cricket Club, from which it already receives an annual six-figure sum but from which it expects significantly more in terms of cash and corporate and moral support.

Once the commission has dealt with those formalities, there are far bigger decisions pending tomorrow and it is hoped that the AFL directors spend some serious time debating them before changing into their dinner suits and heading off for the Brownlow Medal count.

No decision is expected on how to deal with the long-term issues facing the struggling Victorian clubs, but at least two teams are pushing for something more than the prospect of annual handouts.

The Kangaroos are seeking a guaranteed yearly million-dollar allowance at least until the end of 2007. Melbourne has requested an estimated $1.5 million, also for the next three years, and both clubs would like an answer before the end of the year in order to plan their forseeable futures.

The Bulldogs have virtually been assured of help until the end of 2007 and of all the clubs, it is the Dogs who need it most. Even allowing for the extra $1.5 million, the club will still lose a six-figure sum in 2004.

The Kangaroos will turn a profit of about $300,000 once the $1 million has been added to their balance sheet and while some traditionalists are horrified at the thought of the club turning its back on Arden Street, the prospect of a move to Princes Park certainly appears financially prudent.

Melbourne appears determined to leave the Junction Oval behind and become a co-tenant at the Olympic Park precinct - albeit second-string co-tenant behind Collingwood - and can expect some help from the MCC in doing as much.

Given the amount of money the AFL has ploughed into its northern markets - not to mention the on-going salary-cap concessions to Brisbane and Sydney - the push for long-term financial support is unlikely to go away. And the Victorian clubs' perilous situation is not restricted to three.

Carlton's debt situation has been diluted by the Telstra Dome deal, but the Blues' financial problems remain serious. In far bigger trouble is Richmond, which is expected to lose at least $2.4 million this season and is cutting costs so savagely you have to wonder how the club can function over the next few years.

The Tigers have been told they cannot even contemplate applying to the competitive balance fund until their annual budget is cut by a reported $2 million. The other basket case of 2004, Hawthorn, at least appears to have a savings account.

All of which only further underlines the urgent push for a level playing field. AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou was adamant after last Wednesday's meeting with Collingwood that the league would not budge on the issue of salary-cap concessions until after 2006.

But Wayne Jackson's parting gift to Brisbane may not be as safe in the short term as the league insists. The concessions will be reviewed by the commission before the end of this year and the feeling emanating from the talks four days ago was that several commissioners are starting to wonder whether the competition is being so clearly compromised that radical action is required. It's a subject that begs to be debated tomorrow.

The commission talks should also prove significant in terms of attendance after only half the eight-man AFL board turned up for Wednesday's visit to Collingwood's new Olympic Park home. Of the four who did not turn up, only one, Graeme John, was out of the country.

The no-shows, given that these meetings are scheduled months in advance, seem strange given the seriousness of the issues facing the competition.

http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2004/09/18/1095394059209.html
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be - Pink Floyd

Offline mightytiges

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 57953
  • Eat 'Em Alive!
    • oneeyed-richmond.com
Re: Competitive balance fund
« Reply #1 on: September 19, 2004, 04:21:46 AM »
Quote
In far bigger trouble is Richmond, which is expected to lose at least $2.4 million this season and is cutting costs so savagely you have to wonder how the club can function over the next few years.

The Tigers have been told they cannot even contemplate applying to the competitive balance fund until their annual budget is cut by a reported $2 million.

A touch overdramatic there Caro and once again conveniently forgetting the changes already put in place ::).

We have been overpaying for poor performance! So cuts such as TPP down from 100% to 97% of the salary cap and pays cuts to Gas, Otto (further savings "if" he wants out) plus potentially to 2 more players, are more about paying what our blokes are worth for their output.  Add to that we'll have a younger and developing list over the next couple of years with young draftees on base salary for their first 2 years. These changes are designed to turn us in a AFL standard footy side that will eventually challenge for a flag(s). The bonus is it'll in the meantime save us money as well.

Our coaching panel is set for next year with Wallace (head coach), Royal (assistant) and Armstrong (assistant/football manager). One less member but Wallace knows more about modern footy in his little finger than Frawley and Co. did combined  ;). Miller's influence is seen at keeping the Club on its new course, at the draft table and with the new $250,000 "Richmond Executive" coterie coming on board. Our new CEO Steven Wright has stated publicly that we will be running realistic and achievable budgets and no longer relying on gate receipts and winning games to achieve fanciful targets and to balance the books. Our forecast loss this year has been stated b/w $1.9 and $2.1 million. Our budget plan has been approved by the AFL. IMHO we'll function quite adequately for where the footy side is at and to what we need to do from here on in the next couple of years.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2004, 04:26:35 AM by mightytiges »
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be - Pink Floyd

Offline julzqld

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 3873
  • For We're From Tigerland
Re: Competitive balance fund
« Reply #2 on: September 19, 2004, 08:27:34 AM »
I don't understand.  How come the Kangaroos, Melbourne and Doggies can get hand-outs and Richmond can't? :-\

froars

  • Guest
Re: Competitive balance fund
« Reply #3 on: September 19, 2004, 12:32:28 PM »
Quote
Melbourne, too, has applied for $1.5 million, a sum it hopes to receive retrospectively, to cover its $1.5 million forecast loss for 2004, and be allocated again for next year.

And they reckon we're going bad - how could Melbourne lose so much this year after the season they've had?  ::)

Offline Piping Shrike

  • Premiership Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 252
  • Nothing today
Re: Competitive balance fund
« Reply #4 on: September 19, 2004, 01:58:26 PM »
What level playing field is Caro seeking? Helping Vic clubs doesn't make a level playing field, it just shifts the subsidies.

The only problem the AFL has is working out how to squeeze every last drop out of Vic football followers before some clubs collapse. Then it has to worry about how to keep AFL relevant in Vic after alienating those supporters of the dead clubs, along with others who just lose interest.


froars

  • Guest
Re: Competitive balance fund
« Reply #5 on: September 19, 2004, 02:26:37 PM »
Quote
I don't understand.  How come the Kangaroos, Melbourne and Doggies can get hand-outs and Richmond can't?

Personally Julz, i hope we don't have to go to them.  Rather we traded our way out of it rather than go cap in hand and be under their thumbs!

Offline mightytiges

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 57953
  • Eat 'Em Alive!
    • oneeyed-richmond.com
Re: Competitive balance fund
« Reply #6 on: September 19, 2004, 04:58:07 PM »
I hope we avoid any AFL handouts too froars. At the mercy of the AFL honchos once a club goes down that path. With 20+ years of idiotic decisions and pathetic on-field performances we only have ourselves to blame that we have treaded water for so long given our still large and loyal supporter base. Still IMO the future now looks bright as it appears we have finally learnt our lesson. Mind you it has taken the season  from hell to get the Club to wake up to itself and finally move forward. 
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be - Pink Floyd

Offline mightytiges

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 57953
  • Eat 'Em Alive!
    • oneeyed-richmond.com
Re: Competitive balance fund
« Reply #7 on: September 21, 2004, 02:41:38 AM »
Windfall from AFL awaits poor clubs
By Caroline Wilson
realfooty.theage.com.au
September 21, 2004

The AFL's debt-ridden Victorian clubs are set to receive a multimillion-dollar long-term lifeline beyond 2006 in a historic attempt by the competition to rebuild its poorest teams.

The AFL Commission will hold a two-day conference in November at which it will move to restructure the competitive balance fund, which could enable annual assistance to clubs to double from $5 million to $10 million. And in further good news, the AFL is expected to exceed its projected 2004 profit of $1 million, which should ensure each club receives a $100,000 bonus on top of its annual AFL dividend.

The commission appears determined to fast-track the recovery process for clubs such as the Western Bulldogs, the Kangaroos and Melbourne and will also push to remove the stigma from those clubs receiving special assistance.

A newly-named business development fund will draw on revenue from the next round of broadcast rights money, which the AFL believes will at least equal the five-year $450-million deal that ends in 2006.

The commission met early yesterday and approved a total of $4 million from the competitive balance fund to be forwarded at the start of November to the Bulldogs ($1.5 million), Melbourne ($1.5 million) and the Kangaroos ($1 million).

The remaining $1 million will be pushed into the 2005-2006 fund, lifting it to an available $6 million. The Demons also received a further $1.5 million retrospectively.

While chairman Ron Evans and his team would not officially approve requests from Melbourne and the Kangaroos for guaranteed long-term assistance, it is believed that the two-day meeting in November will not only further guarantee the survival of a 16-club competition, but move to strengthen the poorer clubs over the long term by allocating the extra millions for debt repayment and business development.

Already, the Kangaroos, who later this week are to announce a restructure of their football department and coaching staff, have committed to spending an extra $500,000 on player payments next season in a bid to be more competitive. In 2004, they paid their players about $1.4 million less than Brisbane.

With the Bulldogs, Melbourne and the Kangaroos all expected to reach big decisions over the coming months regarding new training facilities, the commission believes that all three clubs will require continuing big AFL assistance and must be helped to repay their massive debts more quickly than the current financial assistance allows.

Evans is expected to hold talks with all 16 club chiefs this week to outline the 2005 financial assistance packages and outline strategies beyond 2006.

The November meeting also will consider fast-tracking the removal of salary-cap concessions to Sydney and the Lions, or at least announce the removal of Brisbane's retention money beyond 2006 and reduction of Sydney's concession.

The AFL now accepts that while players were the big winners out of the 2002-2006 media rights deal, the 16 clubs were not sufficiently rewarded.

The commission also did not foresee the continuing perilous financial fortunes of its poorest clubs and now accepts that at least two more Victorian clubs - Richmond and Carlton - could apply for financial assistance in the near future.

The renaming of the competitive balance fund is also a recognition by the AFL that the clubs requiring assistance not only were poorly managed but lacked the resources of wealthier clubs to build their businesses.

http://realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2004/09/21/1095651259282.html
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be - Pink Floyd

Offline mightytiges

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 57953
  • Eat 'Em Alive!
    • oneeyed-richmond.com
Re: Competitive balance fund
« Reply #8 on: September 21, 2004, 02:45:37 AM »
Quote
And in further good news, the AFL is expected to exceed its projected 2004 profit of $1 million, which should ensure each club receives a $100,000 bonus on top of its annual AFL dividend.

Well that's $100,000 less we are in debt  :P

Quote
The AFL now accepts that while players were the big winners out of the 2002-2006 media rights deal, the 16 clubs were not sufficiently rewarded.

The commission also did not foresee the continuing perilous financial fortunes of its poorest clubs and now accepts that at least two more Victorian clubs - Richmond and Carlton - could apply for financial assistance in the near future.

The renaming of the competitive balance fund is also a recognition by the AFL that the clubs requiring assistance not only were poorly managed but lacked the resources of wealthier clubs to build their businesses.

We've been poorly managed for over 20 years  :'(.
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be - Pink Floyd

Offline WilliamPowell

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 38964
  • Better to ignore a fool than encourage one
    • One Eyed Richmond
Re: Competitive balance fund
« Reply #9 on: September 21, 2004, 08:57:18 AM »
I don't understand.  How come the Kangaroos, Melbourne and Doggies can get hand-outs and Richmond can't? :-\

The money from this fund is approved and given out when certain conditions are met. For one I think you have to be more than $1 million in debt - the Dogs, Roos and Demons qualify on that front - the Tigers do not and will not  even if we lose $2.1 million.

A good example is the Dogs & Roos only paying 92.5% of the salary cap in 2003 and cutting expenditure to the lowest of low levels. The Roos in 2004 had no rookie list because of the costs involved. The AFL this season "allowed" the Dogs to spend more in their salary cap in the hope of making them more competitive.

"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)

Bulluss

  • Guest
Re: Competitive balance fund
« Reply #10 on: September 21, 2004, 11:36:35 AM »
As previously stated, we are able to turn this loss around quickly.

Jackstar has already pointed out that with a turnover of $20Million plus a profit next season is highly achievable with correct management.

Offline mightytiges

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 57953
  • Eat 'Em Alive!
    • oneeyed-richmond.com
Re: Competitive balance fund
« Reply #11 on: September 21, 2004, 04:54:54 PM »
Free kick for AFL clubs
Tanya Giles and Jane Metlikovec
Herarld-Sun
21sep04

SECRET cash deals are propping up struggling AFL teams with millions of taxpayers' dollars handed out to clubs each year.

The Herald Sun has learned the State Government has already kicked in $2 million this year in footy sponsorships and grants for other programs.
And with some contracts up for renewal after the Grand Final, the figure is expected to rise.

The State Government has refused to detail exactly how much taxpayers' money is spent on the sponsorship deals each year.

The Western Bulldogs and Richmond are two of three main clubs to have received government handouts in recent years.

The money is paid for by promotion of public health and safety messages for WorkCover and the Transport Accident Commission.

Collingwood is also signed with the TAC. TAC contracts with Collingwood and Richmond expire at the end of the season and are under negotiation.

And WorkCover recently extended its contract with the Western Bulldogs until the end of 2005.

But the deals are being kept under wraps, with the Government and AFL clubs refusing to reveal the million-dollar deals because of commercial confidentiality.

Opposition scrutiny of government spokesman Richard Dalla-Riva said he was concerned taxpayers were being kept in the outer. "They promised to be open and accountable, yet are nothing but arrogant and secretive," he said.

Under the contracts, clubs sign strict clauses about the behaviour of their players. These include cash penalties for drink-driving and speeding offences.

In May, Collingwood was fined $10,000 after player Cameron Cloke was caught driving at 144km/h on the Eastern Freeway.

A letter obtained by the Herald Sun under Freedom of Information states Cloke's actions constituted a "material breach" of Collingwood's obligations and the TAC had exercised its right to impose the fine.

WorkCover Minister Rob Hulls said sponsorship was a matter for the TAC board but it was important it used the money appropriately for road safety messages.

A spokeswoman for the TAC was unavailable yesterday.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,10827137%255E11088,00.html
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be - Pink Floyd

Offline mightytiges

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 57953
  • Eat 'Em Alive!
    • oneeyed-richmond.com
Re: Competitive balance fund
« Reply #12 on: September 21, 2004, 05:14:30 PM »
Quote

The Western Bulldogs and Richmond are two of three main clubs to have received government handouts in recent years.

Handouts ??? Since when was a sponsorship deal with independent overnment body such as the TAC a handout! It's no different to the money we receive from our other major sponsor Motorola or other sponsors Connex, CUB and Coca-Cola. The article itself says the money is used for promotion of the TAC - the logo on our guernsey and official gear and the "drink drive bloody idiot" signs around the 'G and Dome at home games. We receive money in return for promoting the sponsor's product. In this case a community message. That's what a sponsorship deal is  ::). Must be slow news day  :sleep
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be - Pink Floyd