Football Department Spending
Posted: Wed May 11, 2011 6:18 pmIn todays Advertiser an article states that Collingwood has the highest spend of any of the AFL sides and goes on to imply that opposition sides that want to be successful will need to be spending a similar amount, hence the poll is this actually necessary or not?
My thoughts are that several years ago it probably did not make as much difference, but I feel that it does make more difference in today's game. Resources can determine whose clubs players get back onto the field quicker, the use of the decompression chamber and intensive therapies and so on likely make all the difference, along with access to modern coaching programmes that are global in approach as opposed to locally based training at the clubs headquarters.
Essendon seem to be doing pretty well and its probably no coincidence that they seem to be one of the clubs that can throw some money around to achieve what they want to do when its called for. The Western Bulldogs conversely seem to have had a few goes at it and now appear to be waning and it could be wondered if they had Collingwoods budget what they might have been able to achieve over the same time.
The skeptic in me suggests that the reason the AFL don't seem keen on any type of capping of football department spending is because they accept that the Premier League and Championship system of the EPL is the future of the AFL. In the P/L the sides at the top of the ladder spend by far the most, occasionally a lower ranked side knocks them off but not on a regular basis and I would suggest that when we go to two groups of ten sides in the AFL that the top sides of the first competition will be difficult to dislodge over time, not impossible but perhaps not as likely as people think it might be.
Even if the Crows and Power each directed all of the projected $3.5 million in extra stadium revenue from Adelaide Oval in 2014 to their football departments, the SA-based clubs would still be at least $3m behind Collingwood's projected spend of $24m.
The gap between Collingwood's league-high spend of $19.5m in football last season and that at West Lakes and Alberton last year reached record levels.
Adelaide was $3.7m behind the Magpies, ranking the Crows 11th in football department expenditure - and they finished 11th in the 2010 premiership race. This status heightens the growing belief in AFL circles that football department spend directly correlates to on-field rankings.
Port was $4.2m behind Collingwood - and its spend of $15.3m is inflated by the two-season payout to dismissed coach Mark Williams.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/ova ... 6053594674
My thoughts are that several years ago it probably did not make as much difference, but I feel that it does make more difference in today's game. Resources can determine whose clubs players get back onto the field quicker, the use of the decompression chamber and intensive therapies and so on likely make all the difference, along with access to modern coaching programmes that are global in approach as opposed to locally based training at the clubs headquarters.
Essendon seem to be doing pretty well and its probably no coincidence that they seem to be one of the clubs that can throw some money around to achieve what they want to do when its called for. The Western Bulldogs conversely seem to have had a few goes at it and now appear to be waning and it could be wondered if they had Collingwoods budget what they might have been able to achieve over the same time.
The skeptic in me suggests that the reason the AFL don't seem keen on any type of capping of football department spending is because they accept that the Premier League and Championship system of the EPL is the future of the AFL. In the P/L the sides at the top of the ladder spend by far the most, occasionally a lower ranked side knocks them off but not on a regular basis and I would suggest that when we go to two groups of ten sides in the AFL that the top sides of the first competition will be difficult to dislodge over time, not impossible but perhaps not as likely as people think it might be.
Even if the Crows and Power each directed all of the projected $3.5 million in extra stadium revenue from Adelaide Oval in 2014 to their football departments, the SA-based clubs would still be at least $3m behind Collingwood's projected spend of $24m.
The gap between Collingwood's league-high spend of $19.5m in football last season and that at West Lakes and Alberton last year reached record levels.
Adelaide was $3.7m behind the Magpies, ranking the Crows 11th in football department expenditure - and they finished 11th in the 2010 premiership race. This status heightens the growing belief in AFL circles that football department spend directly correlates to on-field rankings.
Port was $4.2m behind Collingwood - and its spend of $15.3m is inflated by the two-season payout to dismissed coach Mark Williams.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/ova ... 6053594674
Plus continual number 1 picks to a certain club with blue on its guernsey (not to mention another club with some red and blue). Amazing how that assistance can help clubs on field and therefore its finances.
