The Western Sydney Football Club

Cheesie-the-Pirate · Post by **Cheesie-the-Pirate** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 12:35 pm

Simmo79 wrote:barely raised an eyeball?

Best malapropism for 2008 so far?

Jeffles · Post by **Jeffles** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:16 pm

Probably. We're only in April. Experimental probability tells us there'll be many more.

Cheesie-the-Pirate · Post by **Cheesie-the-Pirate** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:04 am

Quality tautology by yours truly.

Nines · Post by **Nines** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:50 pm

Egan wrote: I have done a 5000 word essay on it for my Spain trip...

Basque nationalism (other than the language component) has strong linkages with Western Australian parochialism.

Did you include the Spanish Australian Football League or the
Basque Australian Football League or both ?

Simmo79 · Post by **Simmo79** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:38 am

I think Patrick Smith in the Oz is proving to be the most clear-headed journo on the AFL’s expansion/relocation policy (he's the bizarro Roy Masters). This is another good article from him which suggests that WSFC and maybe even GC17 are really just plan Bs if Melbourne clubs can't be coerced into moving north.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 70,00.html

Relocation just won't go away but clubs might without itPatrick Smith | June 11, 2008

IT says everything about the ruthless AFL environment that when the competition is at its wealthiest - with much more to come - three Melbourne clubs are threatened with all but instant execution.
David Smorgon, the Bulldogs president through mostly thin and thin, is not exaggerating when he states that the Bulldogs, Melbourne and North Melbourne would crash and burn almost overnight if the league stopped the annual special distribution of its mighty wealth. The three clubs this year received a total of $4.1million in AFL assistance.

Adelaide chairman Bill Sanders speaks for a silent minority - rapidly heading towards a majority - which wants all AFL aid to vulnerable clubs stopped at the end of the 2009 season.

The AFL commission recognises that no matter how leanly and efficiently the three clubs are run they cannot survive on their own. League officials conceded this to The Australian yesterday.

No matter how these clubs trim their football department spend, no matter how they slash their salary-cap payments, no matter how they grow membership or sponsorship. The economics of football mean they cannot help but spend more than they raise.

The devil in all this detail is historical contracts with Melbourne's two playing venues, the MCG and Telstra Dome. The three clubs are locked into long-term deals that deliver piddling returns.

The Bulldogs have averaged 33,000 spectators this season, according to the AFL. Brisbane has drawn 27,000 to the Gabba on average. Yet league figures show that while the Bulldogs average 6000 more at their home games, Brisbane will make $5m more this season from its ground attendance. It gets worse for North at 30,000. Any fewer than the average figure and North has to write a cheque to the stadium.

Sydney draws 31,000 and Melbourne 38,000. The Swans make a killing and AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou has to threaten Melbourne fans to turn up for their Queen's Birthday match at the MCG. Geelong has played three games at its home ground this season and made $1.5m.
Overall attendances are heading for another record level and it's driven by the Melbourne clubs, yet crowd figures have the ability to drive at least three of them broke.

The AFL adjusts its distribution accordingly but that agreement lapses at the end of next season. Sanders says that should be the death of any such largesse. Demetriou concedes Sanders' view has growing support.
The AFL has the money but not the disposition to pay out these clubs' debts and let them start afresh. The drip-feed system has allowed the league to manipulate clubs and control dissent.

The AFL denies this emphatically, claiming the ASDs are time-consuming to administer and tie up staff unnecessarily. We take that advice in good faith but when you are on an ASD you play where you are told. Darwin here we come. Gulp.

The decision on the future of the ASDs rests with the commission. The ruling body is aware that if it drops the assistance it cuts the throat of three clubs. Drape the coffins in club colours. But it knows it must carry the goodwill of the majority of the clubs for it to stick. Angry Victorian clubs have overthrown a commissioner they felt was anti-Melbourne before and would do so again with enthusiasm.

We should not take the view of Adelaide and the other clubs too altruistically. There is a new imperative within AFL football since the commission told the presidents last November its intentions to establish clubs in the Gold Coast and western Sydney.

The concessions being finalised for the new licences are both broad and deep. They effectively quarantine the present clubs from the very best players, both young (draft) and experienced (uncontracted), for at least 2010 and 2011. And more if the new clubs are not initially competitive. While clubs cannot pay bills without money they certainly cannot win matches without players.

If two Melbourne clubs were to relocate to the new northern markets then concessions, if any, would be manageable and the rest of the competition would back itself to pick the jewels out of the drafts.

Clubs such as Essendon want to replicate Hawthorn's rebuilding which was done with regular early access to the draft and shrewd trading.
Fremantle needs desperately to rejuvenate its list through the draft. Richmond needs to overhaul its list. So does St Kilda. The only clubs rebuilding from 2010 and beyond will be the Gold Coast and western Sydney. Unless, of course, there are relocations.

And that's the sting to the mounting pressure on the commission to drop assistance to struggling Melbourne clubs. Without special distribution North, Melbourne and the Bulldogs cannot survive in Melbourne. The commission is convinced of that.

But two of the clubs can if they move north, for the AFL has put aside - again at the request of the clubs - rich relocation packages that would ensure the club's future.

The league is a little bit like that. You scratch our back, we will stab theirs.

Personally, I’m still offended that clubs like Melbourne, North and Footscray, which are well supported by national standards, are deemed to be “struggling” and have their survival threatened by their governing body.

Partly it’s their disadvantegous stadium contracts (outlined above). Partly its being shut out of the lucrative blockbuster fixtures. Partly its about having the draw rigged in favour of double Essendon – Collingwood – Carlton games each year instead of a balanced draw which would give the smaller clubs the same access to the fixtures against big clubs as the big clubs get to each other.

But mostly its about the AFL (read: Demetriou) manipulating the situation to make those three clubs look like relocating to Homebush or Carrara is their only option for making it through the next decade. I really can’t respect this behaviour from the AFL and I hope that those three clubs fight for their heritage and their fans.

It just doesn't wash that the AFL is more willing to prop up two new clubs at $10m+ each every year for an indefinite period but cries poor at handing out $4.1m pa to cover 3 existing clubs.

And if I supported North, the Dogs or the Dees I would be deeply resentful of the other 13 clubs if they voted to end financial assistance so as to force unwilling relocation, thereby avoiding brand new clubs coming in with extravagent draft concessions...

...actually (puts on conspiracy hat*) the massive draft concessions for the new clubs are a large stick to beat the Other13 about with to get them to side with relocation. The carrot being the relocation $$ on offer to the Threatened3. Maybe GC17 and WSFC aren't even genuine prospects for entering the AFL, maybe they're just part of the threat? We're through the looking glass here, people.

* yes, it's made of tinfoil

Egan · Post by **Egan** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 8:26 pm

Personally, I’m still offended that clubs like Melbourne, North and Footscray, which are well supported by national standards, are deemed to be “struggling” and have their survival threatened by their governing body.

Partly it’s their disadvantegous stadium contracts (outlined above). Partly its being shut out of the lucrative blockbuster fixtures. Partly its about having the draw rigged in favour of double Essendon – Collingwood – Carlton games each year instead of a balanced draw which would give the smaller clubs the same access to the fixtures against big clubs as the big clubs get to each other

The draw has to change before I even think of supporting the AFL again. My major issue is the fairness of the draw...a national disgrace

Rob · Post by **Rob** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 9:08 pm

It's just an acknowledgement that clubs can't continue on handouts forever. You might spend $50 million over the next 10 years on propping 3 clubs up before the AFL isn't in the same financial position and becomes incapable of doing so. The 3 clubs fold anyway and that $50 million spent that should have been used finding a long term solution has been wasted.

BTW simmo, have a look at the draw. The struggling clubs generally don't get a poor draw. The Roos for instance, played Essendon at home in a 'blockbuster' on Easter Monday, and play Collingwood at home later in the year. Melbourne have a crappy draw this year, but last year, they had quite a few Friday night games, certainly well above the league average.
And their 'poor stadium deal' has more to do with the lack of revenue (due to the cheapest ticket prices in the league and next to no corporate support) than excessive stadium costs. eg:

Smith wrote: The Bulldogs have averaged 33,000 spectators this season, according to the AFL. Brisbane has drawn 27,000 to the Gabba on average. Yet league figures show that while the Bulldogs average 6000 more at their home games, Brisbane will make $5m more this season from its ground attendance.

That would be because Brisbane charge huge reserved seat premiums, and more importantly, make massive amounts from corporate box sales compared to the poorly supported Vic clubs. If you're making on average double or triple the revenue per spectator, then you're going to make more money. You could blame it on stadium deals, but that's just a cop out. If you're going to let someone who pays just $150 a year get a good seat at just about every home game, then you are always going to struggle to make money unless you can draw far bigger crowds.

Simmo79 · Post by **Simmo79** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:24 am

The over-riding argument is that the AFL is preferring to subsidise relocation or new clubs to a far greater financial burden than they are to keep the Vic clubs on a relatively inexpensive drip feed.

I get your argument that subsidising some of the Victorian clubs would be indefinite, but is it really that expensive? I don't think so. I think it's well within the AFL's means to do so.

But they just want to expand the geographic reach of the league and the easiest way to do so is to push some of the smaller clubs up to Sydney and the GC whether they want to go or not.

anthony · Post by **anthony** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:43 am

I was amazed to read in the Australian that West Coast made $15 mill on their home games & North Melb (the lowest) made only $5 mill. That's obviously a big part of the financial inequalities

Rob · Post by **Rob** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:37 pm

Simmo79 wrote:The over-riding argument is that the AFL is preferring to subsidise relocation or new clubs to a far greater financial burden than they are to keep the Vic clubs on a relatively inexpensive drip feed.

I get your argument that subsidising some of the Victorian clubs would be indefinite, but is it really that expensive? I don't think so. I think it's well within the AFL's means to do so.

At the moment, yes it is. 10 years ago it wasn't. In 10 years time it might not be either. The bottom line is that these clubs are not goint o improve their financial position. Their support base is small, and it always will be while they remain in a crowded Melbourne market. Is it really that prudent to be pumping money in and delaying the inevitable? The AFL are far better in the long term by using that money to ensure long term financial viability.
Like I said, there will come a time when the AFL won't be in a position to hand out millions, in which case the basketcase clubs die anyway. So what was the point of the handouts?
At least in the case of the GC and WS you can argue that it's an investment in the future - there's a far greater chance of clubs in these areas having a sustainable support base 10 or 20 years in the future. For the bottom 3 Vic clubs, who have had 100 years to build a support base, you're pissing into the wind trying to argue the same thing.

But they just want to expand the geographic reach of the league and the easiest way to do so is to push some of the smaller clubs up to Sydney and the GC whether they want to go or not.

Too much of a PR nightmare, and Vlad knows it.

Simmo79 · Post by **Simmo79** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:45 pm

At least in the case of the GC and WS you can argue that it's an investment in the future - there's a far greater chance of clubs in these areas having a sustainable support base 10 or 20 years in the future.

It's hard to forecast more than 10 years into the future but if I was the AFL I wouldn't be banking on a Western Sydney over an existing Melbourne side. Maybe if a club had a foot in each market

anthony · Post by **anthony** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:48 pm

WS Roos & Nth Melb replaced by Tasmania

Cheesie-the-Pirate · Post by **Cheesie-the-Pirate** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:41 pm

North Melbourne haven't been able to make Melbourne, Canberra, Gold Coast or East Sydney work. Why on earth would they be able to make Western Sydney work?

I suppose they are the experts at accepting huge amounts of AFL subsidies.

dibo · Post by **dibo** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 5:28 pm

Cheesie-the-Pirate wrote:North Melbourne haven't been able to make Melbourne, Canberra, Gold Coast or East Sydney work. Why on earth would they be able to make Western Sydney work?

I suppose they are the experts at accepting huge amounts of AFL subsidies.

if they did a balls and all move to blacktown, played out of homebush and made a full-on go of it, within ten years of subsidies it might fund itself.

that's roughly where their standalone victorian plan must meet its inevitable death, so the AFL might have to bite the bullet and punt them 800km away?

Simmo79 · Post by **Simmo79** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 5:32 pm

That would work. Keep their Victorian fan base as intact as possible (the AFL can get rig the draw so they have as many away games as possible in Victoria and against bigger clubs) + the new Sydney fans over time.

A much better proposition than starting a brand new club in Sydney that draws from the Swans marginal support but without any Victorian following.