Richmond receives $400k from the AFL's annual special distribution fund

[one-eyed]

The Power is one of eight clubs to receive income from the AFL's ASD fund this year. It has already benefited by $1m since 2005.

The fund will this year distribute $1.7m to the Western Bulldogs, $1.4m to North Melbourne, $1m to Melbourne, $600,000 to Carlton, $400,000 to Richmond and $250,000 to Hawthorn.

The only other non-Victorian club to continue to receive ASD funding is Sydney, which will this year get a $728,000 subsidy as a cost-of-living allowance for its players.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25202588-2722,00.html

[yellowandback]

The Power is one of eight clubs to receive income from the AFL's ASD fund this year. It has already benefited by $1m since 2005.

The fund will this year distribute $1.7m to the Western Bulldogs, $1.4m to North Melbourne, $1m to Melbourne, $600,000 to Carlton, $400,000 to Richmond and $250,000 to Hawthorn.

The only other non-Victorian club to continue to receive ASD funding is Sydney, which will this year get a $728,000 subsidy as a cost-of-living allowance for its players.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25202588-2722,00.html

I presume that is linked to the stadium deals which have ripped off Melbourne clubs since Telstra/Etihad/Docklands opened?

[Ramps]

The AFL instead of paying out millions of dollars year in year out in compo to clubs for poor stadium deals, should look for a large parcel of land probably out in the SE suburbs again, maybe Berwick or Cranbourne and invest 100 to 150 million dollars and build another stadium.

[Infamy]

No way would that work, you're not going to get 50k+ going to a game at Berwick


Not sure why Hawthorn get any money when they already get millions from playing in Tassie

[bojangles17]

this was in lieu of poor stadia deals

[one-eyed]

And here's why we get $400k .....


MCG 'worst', but League is working on it
By Matt Burgan

WHEN it comes to AFL clubs making a profit, the MCG is "the worst ground in Australia".

That's the assessment of AFL chairman Mike Fitzpatrick, who pulled no punches when he spoke about the problems faced by clubs seeking revenue from matches played at the venue.

"As I've said several times, the MCG is the home of football," he said on Tuesday at a media briefing on the state of the game.

"It's where the game started and, unfortunately at the moment, it's the worst ground in Australia in terms of club returns.

"We have for some 12 months sought to do something about it. We've met consistently with the [MCG] Trust and the [Melbourne Cricket] Club and we'd like to think we're making some progress. That is something we will focus on consistently throughout the year.

"We obviously can't promise to the clubs that we're going to be able to change the arrangements that we've got, but we do think we've got an excellent argument.

"If you look at other sports that use the MCG, if you look at the other sports that are going to use the Swan Street stadium over the road ... they get far better returns out of the games they play.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/73358/default.aspx

[WilliamPowell]

this was in lieu of poor stadia deals

Correct

[mightytiges]

WHEN it comes to AFL clubs making a profit, the MCG is "the worst ground in Australia".

Yep the RFC has been taken for granted and ripped off by the MCC for years  .

The AFL instead of paying out millions of dollars year in year out in compo to clubs for poor stadium deals, should look for a large parcel of land probably out in the SE suburbs again, maybe Berwick or Cranbourne and invest 100 to 150 million dollars and build another stadium.

I can't see the AFL doing that as it would be an admittance they were shortsighted and screwed up by selling Waverley and going down the path of 'ground rationalisation'. 

[Ramps]

WHEN it comes to AFL clubs making a profit, the MCG is "the worst ground in Australia".

Yep the RFC has been taken for granted and ripped off by the MCC for years  .

The AFL instead of paying out millions of dollars year in year out in compo to clubs for poor stadium deals, should look for a large parcel of land probably out in the SE suburbs again, maybe Berwick or Cranbourne and invest 100 to 150 million dollars and build another stadium.

I can't see the AFL doing that as it would be an admittance they were shortsighted and screwed up by selling Waverley and going down the path of 'ground rationalisation'. 

Neither can I but the clubs are getting screwed and the AFL doesnt have any leverage. Berwick as an option isnt bad at all, its just a drive down the Monash Freeway.

[mightytiges]

WHEN it comes to AFL clubs making a profit, the MCG is "the worst ground in Australia".

Yep the RFC has been taken for granted and ripped off by the MCC for years  .

The AFL instead of paying out millions of dollars year in year out in compo to clubs for poor stadium deals, should look for a large parcel of land probably out in the SE suburbs again, maybe Berwick or Cranbourne and invest 100 to 150 million dollars and build another stadium.

I can't see the AFL doing that as it would be an admittance they were shortsighted and screwed up by selling Waverley and going down the path of 'ground rationalisation'. 

Neither can I but the clubs are getting screwed and the AFL doesnt have any leverage. Berwick as an option isnt bad at all, its just a drive down the Monash Freeway.

If the AFL were to do a 180 degree backflip it would need to be near a metropolitan railway station. Berwick and Cranbourne are fine in that regard as there are lines out those ways but the ground would need to be within walking distance of a station.That was one of the major problems with Waverley. It was in the middle of nowhere. Bolte promised the VFL to build a railway line to Rowville but the MCC supporters in the Government at the time blocked it, and the proposed full scale 150k size stadium with the Sir Kenneth Luke stand going all the way around, to keep the MCG as the premier stadium in Victoria.

[one-eyed]

Presidents call for ground warfare
Greg Denham | March 20, 2009

THERE was a sense of deja vu at yesterday's meeting of the AFL Commission and club presidents -- old issues confronting the competition were regurgitated, seemingly with little resolution in sight.

Just as they were at the same time 12 months ago, on the eve of the 2008 season launch, the two main discussion points were the league's planned expansion north -- to the Gold Coast and western Sydney -- and poor stadium returns in Melbourne.

A year on, the stadium contracts pose a larger problem for clubs than the league's proposed $400 million budget for the formation of two new clubs.

Western Bulldogs president David Smorgon said yesterday the clubs again gave their unequivocal support to an 18-team competition -- with the addition of the Gold Coast in 2011 and in Sydney's west by 2012.

Twelve months earlier commission chairman Mike Fitzpatrick labelled the same meeting "historic" for the AFL.

"It is a day when the presidents have shared our excitement about the business case for expansion," Fitzpatrick said at the time. "They are excited by the future and they expressed their unanimous support for the principle of the expansion of the game from 16 teams to 18 teams.

"They had a strong preference for going to 18 teams over 17 teams. The very clear message from the club presidents was get going. Get to work on expanding the competition. Don't waste any time. Do it."

Following that meeting Fitzpatrick said: "The other thing the presidents have asked is that we also do more work on securing better stadium deals for some of the clubs. So we will make sure we do not forget those clubs that currently don't have a great stadium deal."

While the stadium contracts that the AFL struck years ago with the MCG and Etihad Stadium now have far more urgency for clubs, the AFL appears to have one hand tied behind its back in acting on behalf of affected clubs.

Fitzpatrick said yesterday the AFL was not making any threats to the stadiums, but acknowledged the league had several cards up its sleeve.

"With the expansion we'll have more games, and we also control the fixture," he said. "We've looked at the sort of leverage we have."

On the flip side, he added: "We understand these are long-term contracts, and in our view they have become unfair over time.

"They should be reviewed, but they are long-term contracts and we're not in the business of breaking contracts.

"We're limited by the terms of the contracts because they specify a number of games."

At Etihad Stadium, the AFL must play a minimum of 42 home-and-away games each season until 2015, when the minimum number of games is reduced to 35 annually. That can include pre-season fixtures.

Smorgon said the Melbourne clubs most affected by poor stadium deals did not want any short-term solutions.

"We want a fair go for our fans, we want a fair go for the clubs," he said.

AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou reiterated the postion of the commission and clubs that despite record attendances at Etihad Stadium and the MCG, clubs were not better off financially.

"All the upside seems to be going to the venue operators," he said. "In the case of Docklands (Etihad Stadium), it goes to shareholders, and in the case of the MCG to service debt," Demetriou said.

"To be quite frank, the clubs have had enough.

"We know there are other codes and other sports getting better deals at these stadiums."

Demetriou said the unfair match-day stadium returns would be taken into account in the review of the Annual Special Distribution fund, which was in place until the end of 2011.

The ASD review covers funding for the next two years.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25212731-5012432,00.html