Ten And Seven Win AFL Rights - Hooray

[Wardy]

Originally posted by liz
Not correct.

Company directors are beholden to act in the interests of stakeholders, not shareholders. Shareholders are but one group of stakeholders, albeit a group with the most directly linked needs.

In particular, if a director is nominated or elected by one shareholder or group of shareholders, that director is still not entitled to vote to act in the interests of that shareholder or group of shareholders to the detriment of other shareholders (and other stakeholders). They are obliged to act in the overall best interests of shareholders and stakeholders.

Well said Liz. And Ange & I will go for that celebratory beverage as suggested at the very beginning of this thread! Care to join us Liz?

[Charlie]

Originally posted by liz
Not correct.

Company directors are beholden to act in the interests of stakeholders, not shareholders. Shareholders are but one group of stakeholders, albeit a group with the most directly linked needs.

In particular, if a director is nominated or elected by one shareholder or group of shareholders, that director is still not entitled to vote to act in the interests of that shareholder or group of shareholders to the detriment of other shareholders (and other stakeholders). They are obliged to act in the overall best interests of shareholders and stakeholders.

And other stakeholders in the AFL would be... sponsors? Broadcasters? Regional leagues?

None of their interests strike me as particularly incompatible with preserving the 16 clubs.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by SimonH
Normally I love you, man, but that is the absolute pits. You seem to think that there are only 16 football teams in Australia-- and among them 4 are corporate blowins with less than 2 decades' history. Heard of Norwood, North Adelaide, West Perth, Glenorchy, Glenelg, North Launceston, Zillmere, Balmain, Port Melbourne, St Marys etc etc etc? All teams with long and proud histories. Have a look at this site and then get back to me.

Please.

Between them all, they provide at least 70% of the heart, soul and history of the game in this country (over-generously allowing 30% for VFL clubs). In a 4 division national comp, some of them now would be Division 2 teams, some Division 4.

They do not have the financial resources to compete in a national comp. You need to sort out your argument, mate - the Bulldogs and Kangaroos don't have a right to be in the competition if they fall a couple of million short of meeting their expenses, but a club like Balmain (which would not be able to scrape together 5% of an AFL club's budget) has a right to be in the national comp?

Have you really thought this through? What happens if Collingwood finishes bottom? One of the biggest money spinners in the sport suddenly isn't in the premier competition.

They might be replaced with, say, Box Hill. That's fine - but what happens to Box Hill when Hawthorn decides it needs to send its reserves elsewhere, now that they're playing Box Hill in round 9? Suddenly the old Mustangs are in a competition that they can't afford to play in, and needing to find antoher 15 to 20 players.

Meanwhile, a team like Collingwood has to waste time playing against the likes of Glenelg, West Perth and Balmain. They'd win every week, of course - but their players are unhappy because they naturally want to be in the main competition. The fans are unhappy because they aren't in the main competition, the games aren't on TV and there really isn't much fun in winning by 200 points each week. Most important, the competition itself doesn't benefit - while Box Hill are getting smashed, Collingwood isn't playing Essendon on Boxing Day or Sydney at Stadium Australia.

Australian Rules isn't English soccer. There isn't that much space for top-flight clubs, and there isn't anything to be gained out of relegating the only 16 clubs that are the only top flight clubs. Just because something works overseas doesn't mean it works here. It's that simple.

But playing strength is a very changeable thing, determined by a variety of factors-- clubs go from English Premier League down to Division 4, and then back again. In 1907 Norwood beat Carlton to become the 'Champion of Australia'. Such interstate club matches and championships unfortunately fell into disuse (if they had not, a more logical and truly national competition might have evolved from them), but results in state of origin matches over the decades tell the story-- the best side in the land would usually have been a Victorian one, but (at least up until the end of the 1970s when the trickle of interstate players being poached by Victorian teams started to become a flood) the odd dominant West Australian and South Australian team would have taken home the mantle. There is no reason why these SA and WA clubs, which continue to exist, would be organisationally unable to prepare teams that could compete and win at the top level if they won promotion. Similarly, if North Melbourne finish bottom, they should have to prove that they're the best of the second-tier clubs before they can have another crack at the top flight. At the other end, Balmain are no more likely to start poaching Chris Judd and making a grand final, than Rushden & Diamonds are going to knock Chelsea off the top of the Premier League. They aim to achieve the highest they can within their niche and their limitations, and that's fine.

- First of all, interstate club matches were happening as late as the 1980s. So that doesn't have anything to do with the failure of the main state leagues to create a 'more logical' national competition. The truth is that Victorian football needed to expand to survive - but the situation in the other states, especially WA, was even worse. They didn't have the money.

See above. You haven't thought this through. You think a state league team could magically rise to AFL level overnight - bulldust! There simply isn't that many star footballers going around. Where will their players come from? Where will their money come from? Where will their AFL-standard facilities come from? Are Port Melbourne going to play West Coast at TEAC Oval if they gain promotion? Come off it.

What about players? If WC finished bottom because of a spate of injuries, we would be faced with a farcical situation in which arguably the best three players in the country (Judd, Cousins and Cox) weren't playing in the best league. Didn't have a chance of winning the real premiership. What happens to the draft? If Norwood and Claremont win promotion, it seems a little unfair that their best juniors are open to be drafted by the rest of competition. So where do other clubs get their players from, let alone Norwood and Claremont?

Whether it would be financial for lower divisions to travel to compete against each other in Australia, is an open question. But footy is a tribal thing, and harnessing the full power of that tribalism, not merely the limited corporate version that is now available to most non-Victorians, could only increase player and fan involvement in the game.

No, it will send clubs broke much quicker than anything else will. Quite simply, the idea is absurd. Unworkable.

[AussieAnge]

Originally posted by Charlie
Please.



They do not have the financial resources to compete in a national comp. You need to sort out your argument, mate - the Bulldogs and Kangaroos don't have a right to be in the competition if they fall a couple of million short of meeting their expenses, but a club like Balmain (which would not be able to scrape together 5% of an AFL club's budget) has a right to be in the national comp?

Have you really thought this through? What happens if Collingwood finishes bottom? One of the biggest money spinners in the sport suddenly isn't in the premier competition.

They might be replaced with, say, Box Hill. That's fine - but what happens to Box Hill when Hawthorn decides it needs to send its reserves elsewhere, now that they're playing Box Hill in round 9? Suddenly the old Mustangs are in a competition that they can't afford to play in, and needing to find antoher 15 to 20 players.

Meanwhile, a team like Collingwood has to waste time playing against the likes of Glenelg, West Perth and Balmain. They'd win every week, of course - but their players are unhappy because they naturally want to be in the main competition. The fans are unhappy because they aren't in the main competition, the games aren't on TV and there really isn't much fun in winning by 200 points each week. Most important, the competition itself doesn't benefit - while Box Hill are getting smashed, Collingwood isn't playing Essendon on Boxing Day or Sydney at Stadium Australia.

Australian Rules isn't English soccer. There isn't that much space for top-flight clubs, and there isn't anything to be gained out of relegating the only 16 clubs that are the only top flight clubs. Just because something works overseas doesn't mean it works here. It's that simple.



- First of all, interstate club matches were happening as late as the 1980s. So that doesn't have anything to do with the failure of the main state leagues to create a 'more logical' national competition. The truth is that Victorian football needed to expand to survive - but the situation in the other states, especially WA, was even worse. They didn't have the money.

See above. You haven't thought this through. You think a state league team could magically rise to AFL level overnight - bulldust! There simply isn't that many star footballers going around. Where will their players come from? Where will their money come from? Where will their AFL-standard facilities come from? Are Port Melbourne going to play West Coast at TEAC Oval if they gain promotion? Come off it.

What about players? If WC finished bottom because of a spate of injuries, we would be faced with a farcical situation in which arguably the best three players in the country (Judd, Cousins and Cox) weren't playing in the best league. Didn't have a chance of winning the real premiership. What happens to the draft? If Norwood and Claremont win promotion, it seems a little unfair that their best juniors are open to be drafted by the rest of competition. So where do other clubs get their players from, let alone Norwood and Claremont?



No, it will send clubs broke much quicker than anything else will. Quite simply, the idea is absurd. Unworkable.

Yawn, please pass the potatoes.

[Zlatorog]

All these arguments about which club should stay in which should go is totally pointless, especially when comparing to other codes. Talking about creating 1st and 2nd divisions doesn't make sense since all players have become professional.
Just look at the FA league for example and tell me how many top paying, reach clubs had actually dropped out of the 1st division alltogether. Probably none. Only those clubs usually drop into the 2nd division who can't afford top class facilites and players, that is why I find FA is so boring. The same clubs in contention for premiership all the time. It's like seeing Bombers in the grand final year after year, or the same clubs finishing in the top eight.
It might happened in AFL in the future as well, if their officials have to become too gready.

Just a thought.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by Zlatorog
The same clubs in contention for premiership all the time. It's like seeing Bombers in the grand final year after year, or the same clubs finishing in the top eight.
It might happened in AFL in the future as well, if their officials have to become too gready.

Just a thought.

You've got it the wrong way around...that is what used to happen in the VFL/AFL the same teams in the finals year in year out. With the draft and salary cap that is now less likely to happen

[SimonH]

I won't bother quoting the whole reply back to you, but 3 points need to be made:

1. Your whole argument is predicated on a contradiction even more fundamental than the one that I first identified, that is to say:
a) Victorian clubs must stay forever, no matter what the logistics or the cost, because dollars and sense (sic) can't comprehend the tradition, meaning and emotion that fans, players and administrators attach to the guernsey and history of each club.
b) Interstate clubs can get rooted, because there are a whole bunch of logistical and cost issues that make increased participation on their part impractical. The tradition, meaning and emotion attached to their histories might be nice for them, but we've got bigger concerns here: running a financially viable top-flight competition!
If you re-read your comments as a whole and can't see that that's the position that you're coming from, then I'm afraid you're not being honest with yourself. And it's exactly that kind of attitude that exemplifies why a Victorian-centric comp is neither healthy for the future of the game nationally, nor viewed with enthusiasm by football fans in the rest of Australia.

2. I'm not sure if you actually understand what the UK soccer league system is. Collingwood would not play Balmain, any more than Torquay lines up against ManU. (Let's forget the FA Cup which is a side-comp, although inevitably it features a non-league or Division 4 team that knocks off a Division 1 or 2 team and provides the year's feel-good 'local boys knock off millionaires' story.) All of the 'how on earth would their playing list, facilities, training standards etc get up to speed' arguments are faced by every team that is promoted (some of them go back the next year, some don't). The issues of loss of prestige and cash are similarly faced by relegated sides; the absolute elite-of-the-elite players will ususally transfer away from a relegated side, but most of the playing list doesn't walk. More importantly, Leeds fans don't stop being Leeds fans because they're relegated. It's tribal-- sound familiar? I appreciate that a divisional system would require extensive change to the structure of the game (e.g. clubs in the UK must run internal reserve teams; the draft would need to be reimagined; the salary cap issue would need to be revisited). I didn't raise it as a 'we could introduce Divisions next year, and keep everything else the same' proposal. I raise it as one possible way of running the game nationally-- there are many-- for the purpose of getting people to actually think about the issue, rather than a kneejerk 'everything is perfect now (well, would be perfect if Fitzroy was still in)' refusal to contemplate the simple (but seemingly unimaginable to some people) idea of actually having a truly national Australian rules competition.

3. You haven't addressed the core problem with your argument: are you looking out for an individual club (or group of clubs), or are you looking out for the good of the game? It's naive in the extreme to think that the 2 things always coincide. The 'survival of the 10 Victorian clubs at any cost' policy is self-evidently at the cost of the best possible national competition, because every dollar spent paying the bills of organisations who can't afford to pay their bills within the operating environment of the current structure, is a dollar not spent on developing and implementing the best national comp we can have.

You're kidding yourself if you think that the establishment of the VFL Commission was some kind of lapsarian anomaly: all professional sporting competitions in the world have a strong central administration independent of the teams they organise a competition for. Without that administration, you cannot coordinate the fundamentals of a competition of any complexity, let alone deal with complex and lucrative media rights deals, development of the code, the long-term interests of the game etc etc. In any event, 'the league doesn't exist as an independent entity, the league is us' argument does less to help survival of struggling clubs-- rather than putting your argument for cash to a central coordinating body with established policies and principles, you're putting it to Eddie. For an example of what happens where clubs vote directly on life and death: "On November 7, 2001, Commissioner Bud Selig announced that major league baseball would undergo a contraction of two teams, after a 28?2 vote by the owners. Montreal was one of the dissenting franchises." Source. No prizes for guessing where the dissenters stood on the totem pole. (Montreal actually ultimately avoided getting the arse in the very limited sense that their 'franchise' was shipped out and renamed the Washington Nationals in 2005.) Heard the one about 4 wolves and a sheep having a democratic vote on what to eat for lunch?

You cannot change the fact that in 50 years time, these 16 teams based in these locations will not be playing in the top-level national competition. The overwhelming likelihood, and also the fairer thing, is that the distribution of top-flight teams will better represent the distribution of fans and players throughout the country. The most meaningful choice that we have is whether the evolved competition harnesses the tradition and following of existing clubs, or we go down the path of creating corporate 'franchises' out of thin air. Refusing to confront the issue at all because we kid ourselves everything is perfect now, just makes us Luddites.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by SimonH
I won't bother quoting the whole reply back to you, but 3 points need to be made:

1. Your whole argument is predicated on a contradiction even more fundamental than the one that I first identified, that is to say:

No, it isn't. You're imagining one.

a) Victorian clubs must stay forever, no matter what the logistics or the cost, because dollars and sense (sic) can't comprehend the tradition, meaning and emotion that fans, players and administrators attach to the guernsey and history of each club.

Partially correct. As long as the national competition is viable, yes this is the case. The right of each club to remain in the competition is not inviolable, but it must be as close to inviolable as is possible. That means that if the competition can continue to be commercially successful as it is, then it must stay as it is.

b) Interstate clubs can get rooted, because there are a whole bunch of logistical and cost issues that make increased participation on their part impractical. The tradition, meaning and emotion attached to their histories might be nice for them, but we've got bigger concerns here: running a financially viable top-flight competition!

You make the mistake of assuming that I think clubs like Balmain (a local grassroots footy club!) have an equal right to be in the national competition as the clubs that started the national competition! Surely you don't think this is the case?

Can you not see how much of a joke of an argument it is when you on the one hand say that financial viability is the only thing that matters, and yet on the other you deplore the plight of Balmain and Zillmere (a club that less than 15 years ago was forced to go into hiatus) in not having access to the national competition? Just what angle are you trying to come from, Simon?

From what I can tell it is nothing other than 'let's screw the Vics'.

When are you going to address your contradiction? Suburban Sydney clubs that have to advertise for players have an inherent right to be in the league, but professional footy clubs with over 100 years of history within the league don't? It defies any sense of belief.

If you re-read your comments as a whole and can't see that that's the position that you're coming from, then I'm afraid you're not being honest with yourself. And it's exactly that kind of attitude that exemplifies why a Victorian-centric comp is neither healthy for the future of the game nationally, nor viewed with enthusiasm by football fans in the rest of Australia.

You're still labouring under the false impression that the AFL's primary concern should be the health of clubs like Balmain. Yes, that is a concern, but it can never and should never override the interests of the existing 16 clubs.

2. I'm not sure if you actually understand what the UK soccer league system is. Collingwood would not play Balmain, any more than Torquay lines up against ManU. (Let's forget the FA Cup which is a side-comp, although inevitably it features a non-league or Division 4 team that knocks off a Division 1 or 2 team and provides the year's feel-good 'local boys knock off millionaires' story.) All of the 'how on earth would their playing list, facilities, training standards etc get up to speed' arguments are faced by every team that is promoted (some of them go back the next year, some don't).

Oh, you think the plight of promoted teams in the EPL is desirable? You think a league in which three or four teams have the resources to compete for the title, another eight or ten float in perpetual limbo and the rest struggle to keep afloat in the top division is good?

The issues of loss of prestige and cash are similarly faced by relegated sides;

Again, this is a GOOD thing?

the absolute elite-of-the-elite players will ususally transfer away from a relegated side, but most of the playing list doesn't walk.

'The absolute elite will usually transfer away'. Funny. We have a system that prevents that from happening in AFL - it's resulted in a competition where all but one team has played in a preliminary final in the past eight years. What you propose must necessarily be the death-knell of that system. And you know what will happen once that occurs. The same teams will dominate. Every year.

More importantly, Leeds fans don't stop being Leeds fans because they're relegated. It's tribal-- sound familiar? I appreciate that a divisional system would require extensive change to the structure of the game (e.g. clubs in the UK must run internal reserve teams; the draft would need to be reimagined; the salary cap issue would need to be revisited).

Oh. Good to see that you're aware you'd be selling the competition into the hands of LESS clubs, not more.

I didn't raise it as a 'we could introduce Divisions next year, and keep everything else the same' proposal. I raise it as one possible way of running the game nationally-- there are many-- for the purpose of getting people to actually think about the issue, rather than a kneejerk 'everything is perfect now (well, would be perfect if Fitzroy was still in)' refusal to contemplate the simple (but seemingly unimaginable to some people) idea of actually having a truly national Australian rules competition.

It is not simple. It will not work. The sport is not big enough to have that many teams. A SANFL side suddenly finding itself in the AFL will be an embarassment. What you want is a pie-in-the-sky impossibility.

3. You haven't addressed the core problem with your argument: are you looking out for an individual club (or group of clubs), or are you looking out for the good of the game? It's naive in the extreme to think that the 2 things always coincide. The 'survival of the 10 Victorian clubs at any cost' policy is self-evidently at the cost of the best possible national competition, because every dollar spent paying the bills of organisations who can't afford to pay their bills within the operating environment of the current structure, is a dollar not spent on developing and implementing the best national comp we can have.

Like it or not the 16 clubs are responsible for about 95% of all income generated by Australian rules football. They are cash cows - and let's be honest, they are being ruthlessly milked. Destroy them, and you destroy income streams that are NOT easily replaced. Destroy them, and you will lose MORE country footy clubs than you save.

Serving their interests IS in the best interests of the sport. You might not like centralised professionalism of the sport, but it is a reality. Zillmere doesn't have a place in the national competition.

You're kidding yourself if you think that the establishment of the VFL Commission was some kind of lapsarian anomaly: all professional sporting competitions in the world have a strong central administration independent of the teams they organise a competition for. Without that administration, you cannot coordinate the fundamentals of a competition of any complexity, let alone deal with complex and lucrative media rights deals, development of the code, the long-term interests of the game etc etc. In any event, 'the league doesn't exist as an independent entity, the league is us' argument does less to help survival of struggling clubs-- rather than putting your argument for cash to a central coordinating body with established policies and principles, you're putting it to Eddie.

There is no professional sporting competition in the world that has a comparable structure or culture to the AFL. They either have a structure of relegation and promotion (wherein the rights of clubs have traditionally been linked to performance), or the teams are no more than 'franchises' owned by rich men for the purposes of self-enrichment or, more commonly, self-aggrandisement. Nowhere that I can think of do you see the stability that the VFL/AFL has enjoyed over its very long period of existence. Nowhere do you see community-based clubs that have histories of near-constant presence in the league.

The AFL is NOT like any other league. It is unique (as, in many ways, are the rest of the world's professional sporting competitions). Why the obsession with copying?

For an example of what happens where clubs vote directly on life and death: "On November 7, 2001, Commissioner Bud Selig announced that major league baseball would undergo a contraction of two teams, after a 28?2 vote by the owners. Montreal was one of the dissenting franchises."Source. No prizes for guessing where the dissenters stood on the totem pole. (Montreal actually ultimately avoided getting the arse in the very limited sense that their 'franchise' was shipped out and renamed the Washington Nationals in 2005.) Heard the one about 4 wolves and a sheep having a democratic vote on what to eat for lunch?

Ha! Thanks for proving my point. See what happens when you put something as irrelevent to sport as profit ahead of the sport's place in the community? Why did baseball - quite possibly the richest sport in the world - need to cut two teams?

You cannot change the fact that in 50 years time, these 16 teams based in these locations will not be playing in the top-level national competition.

This is not a fact.

The overwhelming likelihood,

As you just acknowledged.

and also the fairer thing, is that the distribution of top-flight teams will better represent the distribution of fans and players throughout the country.

Why should people lose their clubs after they have fought tooth and nail (and perhaps only Essendon has never been in danger of dying out) to keep their clubs lose them? What is fair about that?

The most meaningful choice that we have is whether the evolved competition harnesses the tradition and following of existing clubs, or we go down the path of creating corporate 'franchises' out of thin air. Refusing to confront the issue at all because we kid ourselves everything is perfect now, just makes us Luddites.

Meaningful? Garbage!

Sydney in 1983 was a shadow of South Melbourne. A faint flickering candle of what the club had so recently been. It is a great testament to why clubs SHOULDN'T be carelessly thrown on the scrap-heap that the candle wasn't allowed to go out through those dark years. If you ran the competition, Sydney would have died in 1993. Have you stopped to think about that? You would have been wrong, Simon. Noone in 1993 would have taken anyone who suggested we were three years away from a Grand Final - or even 12 from a premiership - seriously. But they were wrong.

Throughout those years people who cared about what South Melbourne was - and what Sydney still is - fought like hell against people who had your vision for the sport. They harnessed the tradition and kept our history alive.

[goswannie14]

You two need to hire a boxing ring and slug it out.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by goswannie14
You two need to hire a boxing ring and slug it out.

I have a lot of respect for Simon and really enjoy his posts. He's one of the best half dozen or so on this site, in fact.

However in the past year or so I have started to ponder what it would do to me if the Swans ever died... knowing how close we've come, and that there really isn't anything to say that it won't get that close again.

This has made me very much aware that if I were heartbroken by the loss of my club, so too would be Kangaroos and Bulldogs fans. I no longer understand how anyone - let alone a Swans fan - could be so cavalier about wishing such things on someone else.

[Wardy]

Originally posted by Charlie
I have a lot of respect for Simon and really enjoy his posts. He's one of the best half dozen or so on this site, in fact.

However in the past year or so I have started to ponder what it would do to me if the Swans ever died... knowing how close we've come, and that there really isn't anything to say that it won't get that close again.

This has made me very much aware that if I were heartbroken by the loss of my club, so too would be Kangaroos and Bulldogs fans. I no longer understand how anyone - let alone a Swans fan - could be so cavalier about wishing such things on someone else.

Charlie - none of us want the Swans to dissapear - but nothing in this life is guaranteed. No one can predict what will happen in the future.

Just chill out a bit - you are after all on Uni Holidays, enjoy them while they last.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by Wardy
Charlie - none of us want the Swans to dissapear - but nothing in this life is guaranteed. No one can predict what will happen in the future.

That's exactly my point, Wardy.

It's all very well to talk about giving teams to the Gold Coast and Western Sydney and Tasmania, and cutting out existing clubs - when you think your team is safe. I wonder how many people would support reducing the number of teams if their club was the one in the firing line.

I can't in good conscience wish upon the fans of Victorian clubs anything that I would fight tooth and nail to prevent happening to Sydney.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by Charlie
That's exactly my point, Wardy.

It's all very well to talk about giving teams to the Gold Coast and Western Sydney and Tasmania, and cutting out existing clubs - when you think your team is safe. I wonder how many people would support reducing the number of teams if their club was the one in the firing line.

I can't in good conscience wish upon the fans of Victorian clubs anything that I would fight tooth and nail to prevent happening to Sydney.

My club was in the firing line Charlie, didn't you read in the papers that Sydney used to be South Melbourne? So many of us have been through it and survived, why can't others. My Fitzroy Lions, now Brisbane Lions, friends would agree.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by goswannie14
My club was in the firing line Charlie, didn't you read in the papers that Sydney used to be South Melbourne? So many of us have been through it and survived, why can't others. My Fitzroy Lions, now Brisbane Lions, friends would agree.

I don't know a Fitzroy or South fan who prefer what they have now to what they had then.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by Charlie
I don't know a Fitzroy or South fan who prefer what they have now to what they had then.

What...premierships???

I know what you are saying, but don't entirely agree/disagree with you.