17th team = A loaded gun aimed at the Roos' head

[Rik E Boy]

Andy Demetreou may go down as the most revilled North Melbourne player by Roos fans after recent events have unfolded.

The AFL want a team in the Gold Coast. The AFL wants that team to be the Roos. The AFL is committed to a 16 team competition.

When you consider the above, the threat of a 17th team in the AFL is one that the Kangaroos should be very wary of. Obviously, the majority of Kangaroos fans, members and committee want to remain in Melbourne and you can't blame them for that. However, taking on the AFL over this issue could lead to the demise of one of the proudest clubs in the competition. The Kangaroos will soon find out that taking on the Cats and the Power in September is an absolute doddle compared to trying to fight the AFL on this issue. Unless you are Collingwood, the league is bigger than any club and if that 17th team is established the Roos could soon find themselves walking down Fitzroy street.

Relocation is not and should not ever be plan A. But if it is Plan B and Plan C is extintion, I'd know what road I'd want my club to take. If the AFL take on the Roos I know who my money is on....just ask any Fitzroy supporter.

regards,

REB

[rogernumber10]

Couple of points:
AFL has said they want regular week to week footy on the Gold Coast by 2010.
They have said to the Kangaroos the option is open to you, and it's up to you if you go or not.
If the Kangas don't go, the AFL has said it will be going to the Gold Coast anyway.
If the Kangas don't go, the AFL has also said that it can't see how it survives in Melbourne, bearing in mind that the AFL contributes seven out of every 10 dollars the Kangaroos currently make, and their debt is blowing out towards 5 million now, even with the AFL paying in that much money while they are in Melbourne.
If the Kangas want to stay in Melbourne, or go, that's their call, but if they stay in Melbourne, they have to find a lot of money beyond the nine million or so a year the AFL already gives them (three million a year more than the average club).

[smac]

Interesting points, Rog.

On the surface, seems a brave decision by the 'Roos. I think scratching the surface indicates it may be a foolish decision.

That debt would kill them if the AFL turned off the tap.

[Dogwatcher]

Would the AFL risk doing that? Losing another beloved Melbourne club, one which has had much more recent success than the Roys had when they were merged, more than the Swans had when they sent North, will cause some controversy. The Roos seem to have more media connections than the Roos did as well.

Interesting that when the Swans went North, there was a strong faction that wanted Barassi to coach and it would seem if he had of, the Swans would've stayed Lakeside....could we see someone like that step in to save the day for the Roos?

BTW - any chance of University re-entering the league?

[Hondo]

Interesting that when the Swans went North, there was a strong faction that wanted Barassi to coach and it would seem if he had of, the Swans would've stayed Lakeside....could we see someone like that step in to save the day for the Roos?

If the stakeholders in the Roos view staying in Melbourne as being 'saved' then this could get ugly

Glenn Archer wants to get on the Board and fight to keep the team in Melbourne

Different people will have different views on how the club can be saved - some will say moving to the GC is the only way, others will say staying in Melbourne is the only way

The members and supporters have to be handled with respect and care through this process

Reading between the lines I assume that the Roos have indicated interest in the past but as D-Day gets closer have got cold feet leaving the AFL feeling exposed having already committed themselves to go.

My view - if they go it will be a ruckus for a while but then in 3 years time all will be settled and the GC Roos will be a force and set up for long term stability

[JK]

Would the AFL risk doing that? Losing another beloved Melbourne club, one which has had much more recent success than the Roys had when they were merged, more than the Swans had when they sent North, will cause some controversy. The Roos seem to have more media connections than the Roos did as well.

I reckon they would risk doing it in a heartbeat ... It's all about the dollars unfortunately!

If you use the figures Rog has included you can see where the AFL can save money, I would imagine they also believe they can make a bit up North - Tough spot for the Kanga's

[rogernumber10]

The AFL has said, also, to the club that it will keep giving them the same distribution as every other club if they stay in Melbourne, but that the problem is that currently they get more than everybody else in the competition, while they are here, and they are falling behind at a rapid rate.
Kangas are not paying up to 100 pct of the salary cap (making it hard there), have the worst facilities and the least amount of off-field assistance to keep them competitive.
If they stay in Melbourne, they will keep getting the same money as every other club, but their overall club performance off-field in terms of revenue etc is way short of the leaders both in Vic, and out of Vic.

[Hondo]

From ABC NewsMail 31 Oct 2007:

*AFL reject Kangaroos' Gold Coast proposal*

The AFL have knocked back a proposal from the Kangaroos to increase their playing presence on the Gold Coast, but remain based in Melbourne.

The Kangaroos board met on Wednesday to sign off on their plan to play as many as eight matches a season in Queensland by 2010.

They then met with the AFL, who rejected the hybrid proposal and gave the club 30 days to reconsider their options, in addition to proposing how they intend to rein in their debt of $4.25 million.

AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou said the ball was in the Kangaroos' court, as relocation was the only option if the club wanted to maintain ties with the Gold Coast.

"We just reiterated our consistency which is... this is a decision for the Kangaroos board, it's not a decision that the AFL will make for the Kangaroos," he said.

Demetriou said the AFL would have an increased presence on the Gold Coast in the future, regardless of whether the Kangaroos relocated north.

"The AFL is going to the Gold Coast and whether it's with the Kangaroos or anyone else we will be there and we will have no hesitation whatsoever in issuing a 17th licence," he said.

Kangaroos chief executive Rick Aylett said the club had been confident that their proposal would be approved prior to meeting with the AFL.

"We think it was a very good option, but it doesn't fit the AFL's criteria for their push and move into south-east Queensland," he said.

[Jar Man Out]

absolute disgrace.

talk about afl pumping money into the roos as a waste.

that money wouldnt even equate to 50% of the money they have put into the QAFL/ Gold Coast over the years.

30 million was committed to the QAFL two seasons ago.

whilst SANFL junior funding cut completely.

more Queenslanders getting drafted than SA boys.

if i was the SANFL.I would be highly offended.

so Adelaide cant support 3 AFL teams. But Queensland can support the same amoutn as WA and SA.

Disgraceful.

[Sojourner]

The problem is that relocating a side to QLD is not going to neccessaraly make the locals rush out and support the side. The better scenario is for Southport an existing cashed up QFL club to be admitted to the AFL based on the QFL system.

The welfare payments will be spread more thinly between struggling clubs and market forces will decide who stays and who goes, I dont have a problem with that, the clubs whose members really are the most passionate will survive and those who are not will fold.

Tasmania is also still an option for a side that wishes to relocate, so if a side doesnt want to go to the Gold Coast, that option can also be taken into consideration by the respective clubs boards.

[rogernumber10]

absolute disgrace.

talk about afl pumping money into the roos as a waste.

that money wouldnt even equate to 50% of the money they have put into the QAFL/ Gold Coast over the years.

30 million was committed to the QAFL two seasons ago.

whilst SANFL junior funding cut completely.

more Queenslanders getting drafted than SA boys.

if i was the SANFL.I would be highly offended.

so Adelaide cant support 3 AFL teams. But Queensland can support the same amoutn as WA and SA.

Disgraceful.

SANFL gets just under a million from the AFL in a junior footy grant for the last 12 months, plus another 850,000 last year in the transfer fees for the players from SA in the AFL, each time they reach the various trigger milestones of games played.

[Jar Man Out]

only SANFL players get these players payments or is that industry standard ????

SANFl makes payments re juniors not AFL and have for several years to my understanding. more than happy to be corrected on this.

- the AFl committed $30 million to the QAFL two years ago."involvement on the Gold Coast, where AFL CEO Andrew Demetriou revealed the league would spend $30 million developing the game in the region over the next five years." from http://www.afl.com.au

- the AFl flies down team officials of QAFL clubs to see how AFL clubs run each year.

Brisbane had the lowest membership of any club in the AFl last year.

hey id expand on this market if i was you.

[rogernumber10]

only SANFL players get these players payments or is that industry standard ????

SANFl makes payments re juniors not AFL and have for several years to my understanding. more than happy to be corrected on this.

- the AFl committed $30 million to the QAFL two years ago.
- the AFl flies down team officials of QAFL clubs to see how AFL clubs run each year.

Brisbane had the lowest membership of any club in the AFl last year.

hey id expand on this market if i was you.

Okay:
Every single player in the AFL competition qualifies for transfer payments, upon being drafted, years on the list, AFL games played. Longer you stay in the comp and the more milestones you clock up, the more transfer payments your AFL club is liable for. That's an AFL rule. Each various state association, from whence the player originally came from, makes its own separate state by state by decision on how that transfer money is distributed when they receive it from the AFL club, be it partly paid to the original grass roots club of origin, go into general consolidated revenue, spent on junior development etc.
The AFL has made a major commitment to the QAFL in the past two years, as their start-up seed funding. This is the same as NSW and Tas and NT in recent years, which have all had varying amounts. WA and SA have not, as they rely in this area for a significant chunk of money each year from the two AFL clubs in each of their states. But they still get grants from the AFL every year among game development money. Port, Crows, Freo and Eagles all have agreements to pay money to the state body. This doesn't apply in the other states, and the AFL tops up that funding as part of their commitment to fund non-AFL football.
Don't know about flying down QAFL club officials, but the AFL flies in reps of all state leagues twice a year for conferences etc on game development, junior expansion. Every state comes to them.
Brisbane's 06 membership was comfortably ahead of only Kangaroos, Melbourne and Bulldogs to be fourth lowest in competition, just behind Carlton and Hawthorn. Its 07 membership did fall to the lowest, just behind the Kangaroos, and then there was a very significant gap to 14th spot.
In terms of why the AFL wants to go to the Gold Coast, size of the population in the region is the biggest driver.
Also, the financial arrangement at the Stadium means the club that plays there gets access to all revenue / signage rights under the same financial model that applies to the strong WA and SA teams and Geelong, but doesn't apply to most Vic clubs, massively helping that club's finances. A 20,000 crowd at Geelong makes a big profit, as does a similar crowd at Carrara, but requires a much bigger crowd at MCG because MCG retains many of those rights.
As for television, it's no secret that tv rights payments that networks are prepared to pay overall to the game have gone through the roof once tv networks can regularly bank on solid NSW and Qld figures to add to amazing southern states figures the game has always boasted.
I'm not saying the Kangas should go or stay, but if they stay, it's a big job they have to survive, because the AFL is already supplying nearly half their money, and they are falling behind.
AFL keeps giving them more money than the rest, and they would need to find extra money they haven't yet found in the last few years.

[spiderblu]

Well my comment be short and sweet..
17 teams wont hesistate to grant a lincense...ALARM bells should be ringing after this completely stupid suggestion........17 teams wtf?

[Punk Rooster]

Well my comment be short and sweet..
17 teams wont hesistate to grant a lincense...ALARM bells should be ringing after this completely stupid suggestion........17 teams wtf?

Sturt will be the 17th AFL team- just ask SturtPeter.

[Rik E Boy]

absolute disgrace.

talk about afl pumping money into the roos as a waste.

that money wouldnt even equate to 50% of the money they have put into the QAFL/ Gold Coast over the years.

30 million was committed to the QAFL two seasons ago.

whilst SANFL junior funding cut completely.

more Queenslanders getting drafted than SA boys.

if i was the SANFL.I would be highly offended.

so Adelaide cant support 3 AFL teams. But Queensland can support the same amoutn as WA and SA.

Disgraceful.

Pfft. More emotion and little logic. SEQ is growing by a thousand people a week and Adelaide's population is static at best. If you got your way and a third side came into SA you could kiss your golden dynasty goodbye as the SANFL would evaporate.

regards,

REB

[Rik E Boy]

only SANFL players get these players payments or is that industry standard ????

SANFl makes payments re juniors not AFL and have for several years to my understanding. more than happy to be corrected on this.

- the AFl committed $30 million to the QAFL two years ago."involvement on the Gold Coast, where AFL CEO Andrew Demetriou revealed the league would spend $30 million developing the game in the region over the next five years." from http://www.afl.com.au

- the AFl flies down team officials of QAFL clubs to see how AFL clubs run each year.

Brisbane had the lowest membership of any club in the AFl last year.
hey id expand on this market if i was you.

Fair dinkum this has been done to death on this board. Yeah, your right Tinpot, every single Qlder isn't interested in football at all, as you can tell by the Lions membership figures. NOT. Catch up with the times mate and have a read what everyone said about this about four weeks ago FFS.

regards,

REB

[Jar Man Out]

i think you would need to check how many brisbane memberships are based in brisbane.

they are a hybrid club dont forget. which the afl club doesnt want ofcourse. another contradiction from afl.

many fitzroy fans still follow them. why they are called lions and have to play atleast 7 games in melbourne per year.

i believe the figures released about 12 months ago were 6000 fitzroy fans are members.

awesome queensland.

well worth a $30 mill investment.

as for SA. ????????

[Mr66]

BTW - any chance of University re-entering the league?

Nup, TOO successful in the VAFA.

[smac]

You do raise some interesting points JMO, but try this on.

You own a company - a very large and successful company. You have one product and it is the most popular product of it's kind in SA, WA, Vic. But you want more for your product because you are really passionate about it. You recognise that to increase your revenues and the number of people using (participating in...) your product you need to venture into QLD and NSW. To do this, do you just open a shop and hope people turn up, even though these states already have a viable competitor with a similar product? Or, do you spend a truckfull of cash trying to show more people your product and get them to try it?

Do you persist, knowing that your product is superior and will win out or do you walk away after trying for a short time?

Just trying to point out at least part of the AFL perspective on this issue. I'm not certain that what the AFL is doing is 100% correct, but it isn't as far wrong as some of your points indicate.