PDA

View Full Version : Bulldogs want 'catch-up footy'



Greystache
23-02-2013, 10:21 AM
http://images.theage.com.au/2013/02/22/4055356/dan-20130222200036491276-620x349.jpg

THE Western Bulldogs have proposed that the AFL use the proceeds of club poker machines for a ''luxury tax,'' one of a range of measures the club has put forward with the hope of creating a more even competition.

In their formal submission to the AFL on equalisation, the Bulldogs also made the novel suggestion that the AFL fund a specific ratio of the football department budget that is not spent on player payments. The club said, for example, that if the salary cap was $10 million and the agreed ratio for non-player payment spending was 50 per cent, then each and every club would receive $15 million in a new arrangement.

The Bulldogs' submission - titled ''catch up footy'' - called for the sharing of stadium revenues and costs - in effect, centralising the costs and revenues from the different match-day venues. ''The overarching concept,'' said the club, ''should be that it doesn't matter who you play, where you play, when you play, you will receive the same net return on match returns as the other 17 clubs in the competition.''

The Bulldogs argue that the competition will do better commercially - in attendances and in generating money and interest - if the competition is more equalised than it is today and their submission comes as the AFL considers various ways of equalising the divide, including different pricing of different matches.
Advertisement

''Both history and economics suggest that there are significant advantages to be enjoyed from an even and strong competition - in which the four smallest franchises can and do regularly participate in the last two weeks of the finals.''

But the Bulldogs were opposed to caps on spending in football departments, because this would stymie innovation and creativity. Equalisation, they said, should be about ''underpinning a minimum rather than enforcing a maximum; on raising a general standard rather than reining in excellence''.

But perhaps the most novel concept in the submission was that poker machine revenues be redistributed into a central pool, once they reach ''a certain proportion of gross club revenue''. The club noted the growth in poker machine revenue - and the growing gap between smaller and larger Victorian clubs in this area, developments which ''have been to the detriment of the competition''.

The club said a poker machine ''luxury tax'' might have the additional benefit of reducing the incentive of clubs to increase their own dependence and their fans exposure to poker machine use.

President Peter Gordon said the Bulldogs generated about $300,000 from poker machines, ''about 10 per cent'' of what the larger clubs made from pokies in Victoria.

In ''catch up footy'', the Dogs point out that America's National Football League - the biggest sporting competition in the world - shares 70 per cent of all income, thereby building a competition in which ''every game is a potential blockbuster''.

The Bulldogs said it would be best for the game, if the ''next 100,000 new football fans in Victoria electing to become club members chose smaller franchises rather than larger. There are only so many fans who can get to a Collingwood or Essendon game each week.''

The aim, their submission said, should be to ''reach or approach capacity in as many games as possible''.

The Dogs said success in the AFL should be determined ''by how smart you are and how hard you work, and the emphasis should fall on equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome''.

''Catch up footy'' - authored by Gordon, chief executive Simon Garlick and executives Wayne Tattersall, Shannon Rees, Gary Kent, with help from author/journalist Gideon Haigh - also argued that the AFL now had a different kind of supporter - ''the two-eyed fan'' who followed his own club, but also watched other games regularly and wished to see a close and exciting competition.

''Catch up footy'' said that the Etihad Stadium tenants suffered from the money that went into the coffers of the ground's private ownership. In effect, Etihad tenants were ''paying off the stadium on behalf of all clubs''.

Link (http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/bulldogs-want-catchup-footy-20130222-2ex36.html)

Greystache
23-02-2013, 10:24 AM
Some pretty interesting thoughts in there. Certainly more insightful than the woe is me give us a handout type of thing we've seen from many over the years. I like that we're pushing the concept of helping us grow rather than trying to hold others back.

Hotdog60
23-02-2013, 10:58 AM
I posted the link to the report on other equalisation thread. It was a very interesting read and just shows how we are being bent over with the stadium deal.

Ghost Dog
23-02-2013, 11:03 AM
Agree Greystache. So essentially they take all the attendances, put them in a pool and divide it equally. Is that right?

Especially important is the point that the tenants of Etihad are paying off the stadium for the other clubs.

bornadog
23-02-2013, 11:04 AM
Love this:

Link (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/bulldogs-pokies-plan-wants-rich-clubs-to-share-the-spoils/story-e6frf9jf-1226583909510)

CARLTON would be the biggest loser under a radical "pokies tax" scheme proposed by the cash-strapped Western Bulldogs.

bornadog
23-02-2013, 11:08 AM
If you want to read the submission by the club in full just click here (http://www.westernbulldogs.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/WesternBulldogs/Articles/General%202013/Final210213_WesternBulldogsEqualisationPaperSubmission.pdf)

Greystache
23-02-2013, 11:09 AM
Agree Greystache. So essentially they take all the attendances, put them in a pool and divide it equally. Is that right?

Especially important is the point that the tenants of Etihad are paying off the stadium for the other clubs.

That's one aspect, but the main point I was interested in is the taxation of pokies revenue. Clubs with the capital to invest in gaming venues have the ability to further grow their revenue streams, so the rich get richer. It's particularly relevant as many of these gaming venues are located in areas in no way connected to the club that own them, for example Collingwood and Hawthorn have highly lucrative gaming venues in the North and Western suburbs.

Ghost Dog
23-02-2013, 11:24 AM
That's one aspect, but the main point I was interested in is the taxation of pokies revenue. Clubs with the capital to invest in gaming venues have the ability to further grow their revenue streams, so the rich get richer. It's particularly relevant as many of these gaming venues are located in areas in no way connected to the club that own them, for example Collingwood and Hawthorn have highly lucrative gaming venues in the North and Western suburbs.

It's a good point too.
Furthermore, the idea of the two-eyed fan is spot on. Sometimes you want to just sit down and watch a game, or head to the G. Who cares who's playing. who wants to see a one sided smashing? They've become to common.

LostDoggy
23-02-2013, 11:51 AM
The pokies idea is great, I beleive we had a venue in Williamstown and Matheison pulled the pin on us and transferred the pokies to Carlton. Really annoys me that we have had to fight to get Edgewater off the ground and all the power clubs have venues in our backyard, did they have to fight ?
With regard to Edgewater the last function I went to they said there was a date in February that we lost the gaming licence if not sorted out with the developer, that date has now passed, so reading between the lines not having read anything looks like it has fell over again, hope not.

w3design
23-02-2013, 05:46 PM
Rather than just becoming a modern day Robin Hood, could the AFL become proactive in increasing the membership of the smaller clubs?

I can think of a few ideas, and I'm sure you guys can come up with plenty more.

We now usually play interstate on 5 and more weekends per season. That I guess leaves a high % of a clubs members simply not attending a match on that weekend at all. I am sure this is not in the League's best interest either. It is not a good look on TV either, to see stadiums nearly empty , or no more than half full on match days.

What I am proposing is something like this. What if the League actively encourages fans of the poorer clubs to take out memberships by adding 'freebie' extras to the package provided by the clubs themselves.
For example they might provide 5 free passes to the members areas at Docklands or the G, that can only be used on a round when your team plays interstate. This would increase the crowd/atmosphere for the other clubs as well.
Alternately, perhaps 1 free or subsidised airfare and entry to an interstate match with your club.

What about all the pensioners, unemployed and welfare recipients who simply cannot afford a membership. Some can only attend the occasional match, or even none at all. If the League were to part subsidise membership fees for those on benefit cards, that too could increase both club memberships, and game day attendances.
These could all be done without attacking the enterprise of the wealthier clubs.
Clearly, buying back the Docklands Stadium would be the quickest and cleanest way of putting themselves [ League ] in a position to aid the struggling clubs.

So here is a challenge guys. Now you try coming up with a few innovative ways the League can even out the playing field a bit.
You never know, one of us may just throw up an idea that could help solve some of the inequities that are strangling the smaller franchises at the present.
Good hunting, and good luck guys.

LostDoggy
24-02-2013, 10:41 PM
My question is, are the AFL genuinely interested in equalisation or merely the appearance of it?

craigsahibee
25-02-2013, 09:32 AM
Some great ideas raised in our submission paper. My concern is that Head Office do not like to be told what to do and they may dismiss this submission because it's not their idea.

The Pokie Tax is one I would like to see implemented. I would prefer that there were not any machines, but at least the tax may result in something good coming out of them, albeit minor. Policing and collecting this tax may be a headache that Head Office may think is not deserving of the work required.

Mofra
25-02-2013, 11:11 AM
It's a good point too.
Furthermore, the idea of the two-eyed fan is spot on. Sometimes you want to just sit down and watch a game, or head to the G.
The rise in fantasy football-style games is another contributing factor in the rise of the "two-eyed fan", plenty take it that seriously they watch as much football as they can.

bornadog
25-02-2013, 11:18 AM
Some great ideas raised in our submission paper. My concern is that Head Office do not like to be told what to do and they may dismiss this submission because it's not their idea.

The Pokie Tax is one I would like to see implemented. I would prefer that there were not any machines, but at least the tax may result in something good coming out of them, albeit minor. Policing and collecting this tax may be a headache that Head Office may think is not deserving of the work required.

Can't see how it will work. For Example, Matheison decides to transfer the Pokie machines to another dummy organisation ie not under Carlton and then collects the money anyway and gives back as a donation.

craigsahibee
25-02-2013, 11:43 AM
Can't see how it will work. For Example, Matheison decides to transfer the Pokie machines to another dummy organisation ie not under Carlton and then collects the money anyway and gives back as a donation.

Totally agree. It's this type of loophole that will be exploited. Good idea in theory, but as I said, hard to be policed.

BulldogBelle
27-02-2013, 09:47 PM
Why doesn't the league itself start its own gambling arm? By getting into the business of owning pokie venues themselves, and possibly running a betting + wagering arm that they could distribute the funds as they see fit. A subsidiary but owned by the league.

;-)

LostDoggy
27-02-2013, 10:16 PM
Why doesn't the league itself start its own gambling arm? By getting into the business of owning pokie venues themselves, and possibly running a betting + wagering arm that they could distribute the funds as they see fit. A subsidiary but owned by the league.

;-)

Because the conflict of interest is astronomical.

Ghost Dog
27-02-2013, 10:18 PM
Because the conflict of interest is astronomical.

Isn't there a 'Doggies Bet' or some bollocks?

LostDoggy
28-02-2013, 10:02 AM
Isn't there a 'Doggies Bet' or some bollocks?

It's just a subsidiary of a larger betting company. Has nothing to do with the club, so far as I can tell.

Besides, the club doesn't make the rules, the league does, so the conflict of interest isn't quite as bad.

Maddog37
28-02-2013, 01:15 PM
Why doesn't the league itself start its own gambling arm? By getting into the business of owning pokie venues themselves, and possibly running a betting + wagering arm that they could distribute the funds as they see fit. A subsidiary but owned by the league.

;-)

Bad PR for the league.