-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
new equalization plan.
- Thread starter tigertigertigertiger
- Start date
Sintiger said:
I always feel confident and that the club's in good hands when I hear Benny speak
I had a read of the PDF presentation that Vlad did last night . There are a few things worth noting .
1. Of the $7.9 million we have been allocated under the Club future Fund some of it relates to compensation for stadium deals which we had been receiving in the past as well . I think that is about $400k per year . So not all of it is new funds .
2. On top of the CFF each club gets allocations from the AFL as they do now but this has been increased to include the increase in TPP under the CBA deal that has been offered by the AFL to the players as well as inflation .
3. The additional $4.7 million we get is not just for debt . It includes money for facilities , extra staffing and the stadium deal compensation . The AFL has set minimums for staffing excluding players as 28 for Football staff ( we have 25 ) and 40 for non football ( we have 31 ) so it appears that a good piece of this money is going to be spent increasing staffing . The total debt repayment allocation from the whole CFF is $7 million but it doesn't say how much relates to RFC .
4. RFC is also required to invest in the Cairns market ( with the Suns ) and also the northern growth corridor in melbourne , via our Craigeburn facility I assume .
5. The presentation sets out the average % of revenue from the stadium deals that each club gets at their home ground . Skilled 90% , Patersons 77% , AAMI 51% , MCG 41% and Etihad 36% .
6. The AFL is aiming for 1 million club members in 2016 . That's 55,000 per club which makes our 75,000 look achievable .
What i would like to see from RFC now is an explanation of how this will change the spending from TFTF . They will need some time to do this I would think but hopefully it can be done before the club AGM anyway .
If anyone wants to read the presentation here is the link .
http://mm.afl.com.au/portals/0/2011/finals/club_funding_presentation_260911.pdf
1. Of the $7.9 million we have been allocated under the Club future Fund some of it relates to compensation for stadium deals which we had been receiving in the past as well . I think that is about $400k per year . So not all of it is new funds .
2. On top of the CFF each club gets allocations from the AFL as they do now but this has been increased to include the increase in TPP under the CBA deal that has been offered by the AFL to the players as well as inflation .
3. The additional $4.7 million we get is not just for debt . It includes money for facilities , extra staffing and the stadium deal compensation . The AFL has set minimums for staffing excluding players as 28 for Football staff ( we have 25 ) and 40 for non football ( we have 31 ) so it appears that a good piece of this money is going to be spent increasing staffing . The total debt repayment allocation from the whole CFF is $7 million but it doesn't say how much relates to RFC .
4. RFC is also required to invest in the Cairns market ( with the Suns ) and also the northern growth corridor in melbourne , via our Craigeburn facility I assume .
5. The presentation sets out the average % of revenue from the stadium deals that each club gets at their home ground . Skilled 90% , Patersons 77% , AAMI 51% , MCG 41% and Etihad 36% .
6. The AFL is aiming for 1 million club members in 2016 . That's 55,000 per club which makes our 75,000 look achievable .
What i would like to see from RFC now is an explanation of how this will change the spending from TFTF . They will need some time to do this I would think but hopefully it can be done before the club AGM anyway .
If anyone wants to read the presentation here is the link .
http://mm.afl.com.au/portals/0/2011/finals/club_funding_presentation_260911.pdf
SkillzThatKillz said:
Could not agree more.
50,000 members and higher crowds is what we should aim for.
Sintiger, I once heard Gale say that we had one of the worst stadium deals in the country, getting this money will certainly help overcome this deficiency.
Cheers Sin. Appears that we have done very well and with the TFTF we can really start to compete off the field. Combined with the emergence of Cotchin, Martin, Lids, Jack, Vickery, Rance and possibly Conca as A-graders, the timing is excellent. Plus the completion of the traaining centre.Sintiger said:
I really hope the club can achieve the $6M for the TFTF by the end of next year. I am confident that Benny and his team know what they are doing and the money will be spent wisely.
YellowBlacks21 said:
So wouldn't it be easier to get a better deal. Threaten to move to Etihad for our home games surely the fact that we can still pull a decent crowd would make the MCC give us a better deal than we currently get.
Our deal with the MCG is not great but it is far superior to the deals at Etihad . Firstly we get bigger crowds at the MCG and secondly we get a greater share of revenue ( 41% - 36% ) . I think the average attendance at the MCG is something like 20,000 higher than Etihad . That will be partly because of the games that are played at each venue but there is no doubt the MCG is more popular .brigadiertiger said:
brigadiertiger said:
Agree. I think he meant though that Richmond and Melbourne have inferior deals at the MCG than Collingwood and Hawthorn have but still better than Etihad Stadium.
Tigerdog said:
Also changes according to the day. I think the Sunday games are a higher break even figure because of penalty rates for staff.
The farce of Docklands is that it becomes AFL property in 2025 so the AFL isn't going to want to move games from there or in any other way damage its long-term viability. And the stadium lease holder has a 20 year contract to make their money back so has no real interest in doing anything other than gouge every cent they can.
YellowBlacks21 said:
Interested to read the "Insider" column in the Age today which talks about the gate returns for clubs.
http://www.theage.com.au/business/grounds-and-revenue-some-afl-clubs-score-goals-others-behinds-20110929-1kzfp.html
It is taken from the PDF file the AFL released concerning the Equalization Plan.
As mentioned before it shows (some) returns from Stadiums.
The point about our deal at the MCG is we, with Melbourne, are the most affected with a return of 41%.
At Etihad the most affected are St Kilda, North and Bulldogs with 36%.
I am intrigued that it does not show figures from other clubs deals at either venue and makes you wonder what is the deal for Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton and Hawthorn.
Note that the clubs with the poor deals get "disequal" funds ranging from $7m to $4.7 while the other clubs (Coll, Carl) are getting $1m.
The total for Stadium Revenue Disadvantage is $25m over 2012-2014 and goes to Bulldogs, North, Saints, Demons and Tigers.
IMO the competition will always be corrupted until the AFL negotiates all stadium deals and then subcontracts to the clubs on an equal basis.
I don't understand why the AFL does not just pay the difference rather than have the equalisation plan?
Maybe it would cost them even more?
Maybe it would cost them even more?
davidrodan said:
I've got no doubt that the difference in revenue is greater than the moneys paid to "equalize".
Having said that tho there is an argument that Vlad (and the clubs) put during the recent press releases that clubs that develop a good supporter base should not susidise ones that don't (eg Collingwood v North).
It's why there is $21m for non-football growth in the plan.
Looking at it that way it seems like a bad deal for us then
if we had the same deal as Collingwood we would not need any extra of the equalisation funds IMO
if we had the same deal as Collingwood we would not need any extra of the equalisation funds IMO
davidrodan said:
Agreed but there is a view that Collingwood get such a good deal BECAUSE we are getting screwed. ie they make so much off us that Pies is cream on top.
This point was made when the AFL and clubs wanted to see the deals that Etihad had signed with soccer and NRL.
St Kilda and North couldn't make money on 30,000 but soccer and rugby league had crowds of 15-25,000.
It was at the start of the year when the AC/DC concert bumped pre-season footy from Etihad. (was that this year or last? whatever)
RedanTiger said:
I think we need to organise a boycott or something to let the MCC know we are sick to death of them ripping us off.
Maybe for 1 MCG game we can all boycott the food and beer stands.
Get the Cheer Squad to make a banner with something like "OFFICIAL BOYCOTT DAY, STOP RIPPING US OFF MCC. " FREE FOOD AT PUNT ROAD OVAL".
Get the club to provide a free BBQ before the game and at half time at Punt Road Oval to feed everyone.
Us beer drinkers can have a few before the game and at Half time at the Social Club or one of the pubs close to the G.
My point is we need to do something about this instead of just copping it like weak dogs.
<
Neil Craig
|
2012 coaches
>
