JUST DECLARE THE 2020 SEASON CANCELLED!!

[saintspremiers]

Cannot be a premiership this year.

AFL desperate to get some TV going for the money, but come on.

Will have a great big asterix next to it.

Agree.

Does anyone think Gil is trying to run an elaborate brothel?

He simply wants to pimp out the whole comp whenever he can and wherever he can.

[Secret Kiel]

Cannot be a premiership this year.

AFL desperate to get some TV going for the money, but come on.

Will have a great big asterix next to it.

Agree.

Does anyone think Gil is trying to run an elaborate brothel?

He simply wants to pimp out the whole comp whenever he can and wherever he can.

Brothel and pimp are good words to use as they perfectly describe the situation. Especially now the clubs have signed full control over to the AFL and loaded up with a $billion dollars worth of extra debt only after a few weeks into this crisis. Who the hell is running to the bank right now and loading up with debt in this crisis.

Could be time to simplify things and go back to supporting local footy clubs and the VFL. The AFL won't be recognisable after this crisis.

[Shaggy]

Especially now the clubs have signed full control over to the AFL and loaded up with a $billion dollars worth of extra debt only after a few weeks into this crisis. Who the hell is running to the bank right now and loading up with debt in this crisis.

Could be time to simplify things and go back to supporting local footy clubs and the VFL. The AFL won't be recognisable after this crisis.

No-one has loaded up with $billions of debt. The AFL has secured a line of credit. It means the AFL and clubs (subject to AFL expenditure approval) can call upon money when they need it. I assume some of the funding will also be used to prop up grassroots footy and get local footy and VFL restarted at an appropriate time.

[Secret Kiel]

Especially now the clubs have signed full control over to the AFL and loaded up with a $billion dollars worth of extra debt only after a few weeks into this crisis. Who the hell is running to the bank right now and loading up with debt in this crisis.

Could be time to simplify things and go back to supporting local footy clubs and the VFL. The AFL won't be recognisable after this crisis.

No-one has loaded up with $billions of debt. The AFL has secured a line of credit. It means the AFL and clubs (subject to AFL expenditure approval) can call upon money when they need it. I assume some of the funding will also be used to prop up grassroots footy and get local footy and VFL restarted at an appropriate time.

Aren't you curious as to why 4, possibly 6 clubs have told the AFL to stick thier proposal up thier backside and refusing to open thier books up to the AFL?

If it's that innocuous why aren't all 18 clubs jumping at the chance to sign up.

[Shaggy]

Especially now the clubs have signed full control over to the AFL and loaded up with a $billion dollars worth of extra debt only after a few weeks into this crisis. Who the hell is running to the bank right now and loading up with debt in this crisis.

Could be time to simplify things and go back to supporting local footy clubs and the VFL. The AFL won't be recognisable after this crisis.

No-one has loaded up with $billions of debt. The AFL has secured a line of credit. It means the AFL and clubs (subject to AFL expenditure approval) can call upon money when they need it. I assume some of the funding will also be used to prop up grassroots footy and get local footy and VFL restarted at an appropriate time.

Aren't you curious as to why 4, possibly 6 clubs have told the AFL to stick thier proposal up thier backside and refusing to open thier books up to the AFL?

If it's that innocuous why aren't all 18 clubs jumping at the chance to sign up.

I am not. The banks have agreed to the line of credit subject to loan covenants being given by the AFL. The AFL will meet the covenants by monitoring the clubs they lend money to. Clubs have the option of running independently or being subject to monitoring / reporting / restricted spending to ensure the AFL meets its agreed obligations to the banks.

If you do not need the cash of course it is better to be independent than take a loan offered.

No-one should be scared. The banks do not want to run the AFL. This is an interim rescue funding package. Its a great rescue by the AFL because it is very difficult to get banks to part with money or commitments in tough times.

[Secret Kiel]

Especially now the clubs have signed full control over to the AFL and loaded up with a $billion dollars worth of extra debt only after a few weeks into this crisis. Who the hell is running to the bank right now and loading up with debt in this crisis.

Could be time to simplify things and go back to supporting local footy clubs and the VFL. The AFL won't be recognisable after this crisis.

No-one has loaded up with $billions of debt. The AFL has secured a line of credit. It means the AFL and clubs (subject to AFL expenditure approval) can call upon money when they need it. I assume some of the funding will also be used to prop up grassroots footy and get local footy and VFL restarted at an appropriate time.

Aren't you curious as to why 4, possibly 6 clubs have told the AFL to stick thier proposal up thier backside and refusing to open thier books up to the AFL?

If it's that innocuous why aren't all 18 clubs jumping at the chance to sign up.

I am not. The banks have agreed to the line of credit subject to loan covenants being given by the AFL. The AFL will meet the covenants by monitoring the clubs they lend money to. Clubs have the option of running independently or being subject to monitoring / reporting / restricted spending to ensure the AFL meets its agreed obligations to the banks.

If you do not need the cash of course it is better to be independent than take a loan offered.

No-one should be scared. The banks do not want to run the AFL. This is an interim rescue funding package. Its a great rescue by the AFL because it is very difficult to get banks to part with money or commitments in tough times.

It still doesn't explain why 6 other clubs stongly rejected the AFLs plan, that means a 3rd of the competition could potentially have an unfair advantage for many different reasons not least of all unrestricted spending on thier football department and off field support services.

The AFL is one of the most profitable businesses in Australia, why do we need to change the way we do business, we will be well capable of servicing the loan under the current model.

[saintspremiers]

It’s a shame (but I’m not blaming him!) that AB hasn’t bailed us out of this mess so we aren’t St Kilda Football Club (under AFL administration).

We are now no different to Gold Coast - we do as Gil commands.

Supposedly the annual AFL distributions is now the same for all clubs - we got about 5M more than some clubs - the shortfall now will be in the form of the debt facility instead.

It’s clearly now the haves and have nots big time.

At least we aren’t the NRL and that cocksmoking crackpot nut job that runs it up north. I wouldn’t be too upset if the NRL disappeared TBH.

[Shaggy]

Especially now the clubs have signed full control over to the AFL and loaded up with a $billion dollars worth of extra debt only after a few weeks into this crisis. Who the hell is running to the bank right now and loading up with debt in this crisis.

Could be time to simplify things and go back to supporting local footy clubs and the VFL. The AFL won't be recognisable after this crisis.

No-one has loaded up with $billions of debt. The AFL has secured a line of credit. It means the AFL and clubs (subject to AFL expenditure approval) can call upon money when they need it. I assume some of the funding will also be used to prop up grassroots footy and get local footy and VFL restarted at an appropriate time.

Aren't you curious as to why 4, possibly 6 clubs have told the AFL to stick thier proposal up thier backside and refusing to open thier books up to the AFL?

If it's that innocuous why aren't all 18 clubs jumping at the chance to sign up.

I am not. The banks have agreed to the line of credit subject to loan covenants being given by the AFL. The AFL will meet the covenants by monitoring the clubs they lend money to. Clubs have the option of running independently or being subject to monitoring / reporting / restricted spending to ensure the AFL meets its agreed obligations to the banks.

If you do not need the cash of course it is better to be independent than take a loan offered.

No-one should be scared. The banks do not want to run the AFL. This is an interim rescue funding package. Its a great rescue by the AFL because it is very difficult to get banks to part with money or commitments in tough times.

It still doesn't explain why 6 other clubs stongly rejected the AFLs plan, that means a 3rd of the competition could potentially have an unfair advantage for many different reasons not least of all unrestricted spending on thier football department and off field support services.

The AFL is one of the most profitable businesses in Australia, why do we need to change the way we do business, we will be well capable of servicing the loan under the current model.

The clubs not accepting the AFL deal have the funding to see themselves through the crisis. This does not allow those clubs unrestricted spending on footy departments because the AFL has a cap in place. It means their spending within the cap is not monitored by the AFL.

The AFL needs to change its business model because its cash reserves of $180 million is quickly being eroded and no-one knows when footy will resume. Revenue stopped after round 1 but expenses keep going.

The NRL also had cash reserves of roughly $180 million. But it does not have a line of credit to draw upon hence its desperation to restart May 28.

Proceeding forward there is likely to be permanent revenue contraction because TV, sponsors and members have all taken a financial beating. No-one knows by how much. If we assume 15% across the board then the AFL needs to reduce costs by $120 million per year to generate its $50 million profit. That is not an inconsiderable sum. The line of credit makes the transformation all possible without losing clubs.

[Secret Kiel]

The clubs not accepting the AFL deal have the funding to see themselves through the crisis. This does not allow those clubs unrestricted spending on footy departments because the AFL has a cap in place. It means their spending within the cap is not monitored by the AFL.

The AFL needs to change its business model because its cash reserves of $180 million is quickly being eroded and no-one knows when footy will resume. Revenue stopped after round 1 but expenses keep going.

The NRL also had cash reserves of roughly $180 million. But it does not have a line of credit to draw upon hence its desperation to restart May 28.

Proceeding forward there is likely to be permanent revenue contraction because TV, sponsors and members have all taken a financial beating. No-one knows by how much. If we assume 15% across the board then the AFL needs to reduce costs by $120 million per year to generate its $50 million profit. That is not an inconsiderable sum. The line of credit makes the transformation all possible without losing clubs.

Isn't it a contradiction to claim the clubs not accepting the new model have the funds to see through the crisis yet the AFL might be at risk? That doesn't make sense.

The new model and loan underwrites player paymemts only, so most of the changes in the new model seem to be about gaining control over the clubs and full access to their administration records.

Looking at this another way is to say the AFL didn't trust the way the clubs previously manage their finances.

There is no doubt if 6 clubs, one third of the comp are playing to a different set of rules then there will not be a level playing field. Most of the advantage will be in the soft cap and we could be lose players like Brad Hill who could be lured to one of the 6 clubs who can offer better perks and conditions within thier soft cap AND secret balance sheet.

[Shaggy]

The clubs not accepting the AFL deal have the funding to see themselves through the crisis. This does not allow those clubs unrestricted spending on footy departments because the AFL has a cap in place. It means their spending within the cap is not monitored by the AFL.

The AFL needs to change its business model because its cash reserves of $180 million is quickly being eroded and no-one knows when footy will resume. Revenue stopped after round 1 but expenses keep going.

The NRL also had cash reserves of roughly $180 million. But it does not have a line of credit to draw upon hence its desperation to restart May 28.

Proceeding forward there is likely to be permanent revenue contraction because TV, sponsors and members have all taken a financial beating. No-one knows by how much. If we assume 15% across the board then the AFL needs to reduce costs by $120 million per year to generate its $50 million profit. That is not an inconsiderable sum. The line of credit makes the transformation all possible without losing clubs.

Isn't it a contradiction to claim the clubs not accepting the new model have the funds to see through the crisis yet the AFL might be at risk? That doesn't make sense.

The new model and loan underwrites player paymemts only, so most of the changes in the new model seem to be about gaining control over the clubs and full access to their administration records.

Looking at this another way is to say the AFL didn't trust the way the clubs previously manage their finances.

There is no doubt if 6 clubs, one third of the comp are playing to a different set of rules then there will not be a level playing field. Most of the advantage will be in the soft cap and we could be lose players like Brad Hill who could be lured to one of the 6 clubs who can offer better perks and conditions within thier soft cap AND secret balance sheet.

No. You can have 6 solvent subsidiaries and 12 which are not. In an interdependent group which the AFL runs funding should be channelled to the ones who need it so long as they have a genuine future and it can be afforded based on cost/benefit.

If the funding can only be made through player payments than that is anal and I am taking your word for that. But that is a receivership model to give priority to the lender in case of liquidation as the payer steps into the shoes of the payee as a priority. Really I doubt the credit draw down is so limiting.

The AFL is simply complying with loan draw down covenants. It is not about control but satisfying the corporate banks in terms of risk management and covering backsides in case it all collapses.

All clubs will be subject to same wage and admin caps.

[Secret Kiel]

The clubs not accepting the AFL deal have the funding to see themselves through the crisis. This does not allow those clubs unrestricted spending on footy departments because the AFL has a cap in place. It means their spending within the cap is not monitored by the AFL.

The AFL needs to change its business model because its cash reserves of $180 million is quickly being eroded and no-one knows when footy will resume. Revenue stopped after round 1 but expenses keep going.

The NRL also had cash reserves of roughly $180 million. But it does not have a line of credit to draw upon hence its desperation to restart May 28.

Proceeding forward there is likely to be permanent revenue contraction because TV, sponsors and members have all taken a financial beating. No-one knows by how much. If we assume 15% across the board then the AFL needs to reduce costs by $120 million per year to generate its $50 million profit. That is not an inconsiderable sum. The line of credit makes the transformation all possible without losing clubs.

Isn't it a contradiction to claim the clubs not accepting the new model have the funds to see through the crisis yet the AFL might be at risk? That doesn't make sense.

The new model and loan underwrites player paymemts only, so most of the changes in the new model seem to be about gaining control over the clubs and full access to their administration records.

Looking at this another way is to say the AFL didn't trust the way the clubs previously manage their finances.

There is no doubt if 6 clubs, one third of the comp are playing to a different set of rules then there will not be a level playing field. Most of the advantage will be in the soft cap and we could be lose players like Brad Hill who could be lured to one of the 6 clubs who can offer better perks and conditions within thier soft cap AND secret balance sheet.

No. You can have 6 solvent subsidiaries and 12 which are not. In an interdependent group which the AFL runs funding should be channelled to the ones who need it so long as they have a genuine future and it can be afforded based on cost/benefit.

If the funding can only be made through player payments than that is anal and I am taking your word for that. But that is a receivership model to give priority to the lender in case of liquidation as the payer steps into the shoes of the payee as a priority. Really I doubt the credit draw down is so limiting.

The AFL is simply complying with loan draw down covenants. It is not about control but satisfying the corporate banks in terms of risk management and covering backsides in case it all collapses.

All clubs will be subject to same wage and admin caps.

I'm led to believe the loan is strictly to fund player payments and I'm also being told there will be a disparity of spending between the independent clubs and the club signing over complete control to the AFL, it is the key reasons for the battle currently going on behind closed doors.

Things of particular concern are the reduction of list sizes, reduced value and benifits in the standard player contract and total control over TPPs.

Probably the greatest concern is the AFL having complete access to club information and financial records so the privacy of information will be non existent and as best I can tell the first four clubs to reject the idea were the first to announce they were remaining independent on this issue alone. This issue alone has the ability to provide significant advantage becuse it means the AFL could share/leak club information for manipulation reasons.

The soft cap has been an arms race for some time and is why some clubs have gained significant advantage, on and off the field. It can be the difference in luring a Brad Hill type. If the independent clubs somehow manage to keep this advantage then that could quickly create immense pressure for survival amoungst the weaker non independent clubs. The gap between the haves and have nots will open up quickly.

[wally]

Personally after a long pre season I would love to have some footy back on telly.
Watched a replay yesterday (highlights) of the Norf game gosh was weird with no crowd.

[Nick_BlueNRG]

Time for some realism.

No Premiership in 2020.

If events do allow some sort of resumption later in the year it should be a series of exhibition matches including at major regional centres.

You could call it the 2020 pre-season cup.
The games should be played with 15 or 16 a side, shortened quarters and extended benches to provide an entertaining spectacle that won't overtax non matchfit players.

The prime aim would be to lift morale, raise some revenue, and reposition the game to make a triumphant return in 2021.

If you did this then St Kilda would be bankrupt.

[BackFromUSA]

The clubs not accepting the AFL deal have the funding to see themselves through the crisis. This does not allow those clubs unrestricted spending on footy departments because the AFL has a cap in place. It means their spending within the cap is not monitored by the AFL.

The AFL needs to change its business model because its cash reserves of $180 million is quickly being eroded and no-one knows when footy will resume. Revenue stopped after round 1 but expenses keep going.

The NRL also had cash reserves of roughly $180 million. But it does not have a line of credit to draw upon hence its desperation to restart May 28.

Proceeding forward there is likely to be permanent revenue contraction because TV, sponsors and members have all taken a financial beating. No-one knows by how much. If we assume 15% across the board then the AFL needs to reduce costs by $120 million per year to generate its $50 million profit. That is not an inconsiderable sum. The line of credit makes the transformation all possible without losing clubs.

Isn't it a contradiction to claim the clubs not accepting the new model have the funds to see through the crisis yet the AFL might be at risk? That doesn't make sense.

The new model and loan underwrites player paymemts only, so most of the changes in the new model seem to be about gaining control over the clubs and full access to their administration records.

Looking at this another way is to say the AFL didn't trust the way the clubs previously manage their finances.

There is no doubt if 6 clubs, one third of the comp are playing to a different set of rules then there will not be a level playing field. Most of the advantage will be in the soft cap and we could be lose players like Brad Hill who could be lured to one of the 6 clubs who can offer better perks and conditions within thier soft cap AND secret balance sheet.

No. You can have 6 solvent subsidiaries and 12 which are not. In an interdependent group which the AFL runs funding should be channelled to the ones who need it so long as they have a genuine future and it can be afforded based on cost/benefit.

If the funding can only be made through player payments than that is anal and I am taking your word for that. But that is a receivership model to give priority to the lender in case of liquidation as the payer steps into the shoes of the payee as a priority. Really I doubt the credit draw down is so limiting.

The AFL is simply complying with loan draw down covenants. It is not about control but satisfying the corporate banks in terms of risk management and covering backsides in case it all collapses.

All clubs will be subject to same wage and admin caps.

I'm led to believe the loan is strictly to fund player payments and I'm also being told there will be a disparity of spending between the independent clubs and the club signing over complete control to the AFL, it is the key reasons for the battle currently going on behind closed doors.

Things of particular concern are the reduction of list sizes, reduced value and benifits in the standard player contract and total control over TPPs.

Probably the greatest concern is the AFL having complete access to club information and financial records so the privacy of information will be non existent and as best I can tell the first four clubs to reject the idea were the first to announce they were remaining independent on this issue alone. This issue alone has the ability to provide significant advantage becuse it means the AFL could share/leak club information for manipulation reasons.

The soft cap has been an arms race for some time and is why some clubs have gained significant advantage, on and off the field. It can be the difference in luring a Brad Hill type. If the independent clubs somehow manage to keep this advantage then that could quickly create immense pressure for survival amoungst the weaker non independent clubs. The gap between the haves and have nots will open up quickly.

Just a couple of points:

- ALL AFL player wages are currently paid and will be paid by the AFL in a distribution to each club. Nothing changes there. The marketing cap is usually paid by the AFL as well but not for 2020. That is $1m approx per club.

- The equalisation distribution paid each year to clubs is based on a formula where the AFL compensates clubs for the FIXture inequities - the more travel games you have, the more you get; the more you pay a low drawing interstate crowd at a home game, the more you get; the more you play Sunday afternoon on Foxtel, the more you get - all to compensate for the loss of attendance revenue and loss of sponsorship potential. This has been a payment in the past. This year it will be a loan that comes with the condition of reporting cash flow / p&l etc. just to protect their loans. The interest rate of 3.3% is cheaper than any club could achieve on their own.

- to reduce spending by clubs (and minimise the need for loans) all player lists and soft caps for coaching staff will be reduced and his will be equal for all clubs.

- importantly the AFL has (and retains the right) to examine the financial books of any club at any time with the need to control the salary / marketing / soft cap.

- the AFL already has and retains the right to take complete control of any and all of the licenses at any time, if a club or clubs are in breach of their license

- the club entity is OWNED by the AFL. The licensed entity is then run by Boards of Management elected by members. Members can vote to change Boards. Boards (and their CEO’s and staff) are answerable to the members at election time. However the AFL can take control at any time. Pretty much like how the Queen / Commonwealth / Governor General / Prime Minister / Cabinet / Government institutions / Electorate relationship works. We can elect our Government but the Queen can pull the rug out at any time.

[The Fireman]

They showed Marshall on Ten news up here in NSW, very rare, I thought they may have stuffed up.
anyway was good to see.
As far as all the doom and gloomers go..nothing will change, after all this s*** we will return pretty much as is.
The saints will continue to break our hearts etc etc etc.
And I'm fair dinkum when I say after their first effort for the season the closing down of the season didnt worry me that much...was just sick of seeing the false hope of this year laid to bare.
Not to mention the Skunks were looking a bit too good..anything to slow them down is a positive, my guitar playing is improving so I guess every cloud has a silver lining.
The saints will have plenty of time to look back on that debacle and if they dish it up again...well if I was still a member I would rescind my membership..all I can do now is whinge

[damienc]

I wanted it cancelled final siren 1st game.

Definitely.

That first and only game we played was a bust and incredibly disappointing.

To be so far in front, and then throw it away, was a really terrible performance that resembled season 2019, instead of a fresh start.

I've no doubt putting season 2020 on hold, was a blessing for some players facing certain, if not permanent, relegation.

[Secret Kiel]

Just a couple of points:

- ALL AFL player wages are currently paid and will be paid by the AFL in a distribution to each club. Nothing changes there. The marketing cap is usually paid by the AFL as well but not for 2020. That is $1m approx per club.

- The equalisation distribution paid each year to clubs is based on a formula where the AFL compensates clubs for the FIXture inequities - the more travel games you have, the more you get; the more you pay a low drawing interstate crowd at a home game, the more you get; the more you play Sunday afternoon on Foxtel, the more you get - all to compensate for the loss of attendance revenue and loss of sponsorship potential. This has been a payment in the past. This year it will be a loan that comes with the condition of reporting cash flow / p&l etc. just to protect their loans. The interest rate of 3.3% is cheaper than any club could achieve on their own.

- to reduce spending by clubs (and minimise the need for loans) all player lists and soft caps for coaching staff will be reduced and his will be equal for all clubs.

- importantly the AFL has (and retains the right) to examine the financial books of any club at any time with the need to control the salary / marketing / soft cap.

- the AFL already has and retains the right to take complete control of any and all of the licenses at any time, if a club or clubs are in breach of their license

- the club entity is OWNED by the AFL. The licensed entity is then run by Boards of Management elected by members. Members can vote to change Boards. Boards (and their CEO’s and staff) are answerable to the members at election time. However the AFL can take control at any time. Pretty much like how the Queen / Commonwealth / Governor General / Prime Minister / Cabinet / Government institutions / Electorate relationship works. We can elect our Government but the Queen can pull the rug out at any time.

So I keep coming back to this point, if the AFL financial support is so good then why are there 6 clubs flatly rejecting it.

Some of the info you've provided appears to be contradicted my understanding of the issues and also by the issues raised by club presidents and led by Jeff Kennett in this article by The Age:

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/ken ... 54iu6.html

What are your thoughts on what's being reported in that article.

[BackFromUSA]

Just a couple of points:

- ALL AFL player wages are currently paid and will be paid by the AFL in a distribution to each club. Nothing changes there. The marketing cap is usually paid by the AFL as well but not for 2020. That is $1m approx per club.

- The equalisation distribution paid each year to clubs is based on a formula where the AFL compensates clubs for the FIXture inequities - the more travel games you have, the more you get; the more you pay a low drawing interstate crowd at a home game, the more you get; the more you play Sunday afternoon on Foxtel, the more you get - all to compensate for the loss of attendance revenue and loss of sponsorship potential. This has been a payment in the past. This year it will be a loan that comes with the condition of reporting cash flow / p&l etc. just to protect their loans. The interest rate of 3.3% is cheaper than any club could achieve on their own.

- to reduce spending by clubs (and minimise the need for loans) all player lists and soft caps for coaching staff will be reduced and his will be equal for all clubs.

- importantly the AFL has (and retains the right) to examine the financial books of any club at any time with the need to control the salary / marketing / soft cap.

- the AFL already has and retains the right to take complete control of any and all of the licenses at any time, if a club or clubs are in breach of their license

- the club entity is OWNED by the AFL. The licensed entity is then run by Boards of Management elected by members. Members can vote to change Boards. Boards (and their CEO’s and staff) are answerable to the members at election time. However the AFL can take control at any time. Pretty much like how the Queen / Commonwealth / Governor General / Prime Minister / Cabinet / Government institutions / Electorate relationship works. We can elect our Government but the Queen can pull the rug out at any time.

So I keep coming back to this point, if the AFL financial support is so good then why are there 6 clubs flatly rejecting it.

Some of the info you've provided appears to be contradicted my understanding of the issues and also by the issues raised by club presidents and led by Jeff Kennett in this article by The Age:

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/ken ... 54iu6.html

What are your thoughts on what's being reported in that article.

Firstly not a single club would WANT to open their books up to anyone if they don't have to. Some have a choice e.g. Richmond and West Coast. Some have a choice for a limited time e.g. Bulldogs. Most do not have a choice. That includes us.

Kennett is grandstanding. Basically he is saying - if you want to see us fully naked then you have to get naked as well. However the reality is this is just grandstanding. The reality is that the AFL already has (and has always had) the power to open the books at any club at any time. It is part of the competition license agreement. The AFL chooses not to do it unless investigating possible breaches - leaving the governance to the clubs to themselves. However in these circumstances where they are about to loan $10m to $15m to a club (some clubs will be between $5m to $10m) and other clubs nothing at all if they choose to use their cash reserves, then they like a bank are able to establish conditions of the loan - and thi si what the debate and posturing is actually about.

Nothing in that article contradicts what I have said.

One point of order - the AFL does has the power to remove or add clubs - but only (as stated correctly in the article) with a 2/3 majority of the clubs voting in favour for it. It is a safeguard (as all constitutions should have) to ensure there is no unilateral misuse of power. However the AFL also has the right to maintain clubs in the competition and take over the adminstration of that club. They have actually done it before - Sydney. They also have the right to handle licenses they hold and control (currently GWS and Gold Coast) and restructure as they wish - which may from being be a full membership based organisation to selling the club license to private ownership.

Nothing in that article contradicts what I wrote.

And agreed that in an ideal world no organisation would want another organisation looking at their books. But reality is different.

If you don't want the loan, then the challenge for St.Kilda is to find a guaranteed $10m - $15m in the next 12 months.

[BackFromUSA]

Just a couple of points:

- ALL AFL player wages are currently paid and will be paid by the AFL in a distribution to each club. Nothing changes there. The marketing cap is usually paid by the AFL as well but not for 2020. That is $1m approx per club.

- The equalisation distribution paid each year to clubs is based on a formula where the AFL compensates clubs for the FIXture inequities - the more travel games you have, the more you get; the more you pay a low drawing interstate crowd at a home game, the more you get; the more you play Sunday afternoon on Foxtel, the more you get - all to compensate for the loss of attendance revenue and loss of sponsorship potential. This has been a payment in the past. This year it will be a loan that comes with the condition of reporting cash flow / p&l etc. just to protect their loans. The interest rate of 3.3% is cheaper than any club could achieve on their own.

- to reduce spending by clubs (and minimise the need for loans) all player lists and soft caps for coaching staff will be reduced and his will be equal for all clubs.

- importantly the AFL has (and retains the right) to examine the financial books of any club at any time with the need to control the salary / marketing / soft cap.

- the AFL already has and retains the right to take complete control of any and all of the licenses at any time, if a club or clubs are in breach of their license

- the club entity is OWNED by the AFL. The licensed entity is then run by Boards of Management elected by members. Members can vote to change Boards. Boards (and their CEO’s and staff) are answerable to the members at election time. However the AFL can take control at any time. Pretty much like how the Queen / Commonwealth / Governor General / Prime Minister / Cabinet / Government institutions / Electorate relationship works. We can elect our Government but the Queen can pull the rug out at any time.

So I keep coming back to this point, if the AFL financial support is so good then why are there 6 clubs flatly rejecting it.

Some of the info you've provided appears to be contradicted my understanding of the issues and also by the issues raised by club presidents and led by Jeff Kennett in this article by The Age:

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/ken ... 54iu6.html

What are your thoughts on what's being reported in that article.

Firstly not a single club would WANT to open their books up to anyone if they don't have to. Some have a choice e.g. Richmond and West Coast. Some have a choice for a limited time e.g. Bulldogs. Most do not have a choice. That includes us.

Kennett is grandstanding. Basically he is saying - if you want to see us fully naked then you have to get naked as well. However the reality is this is just grandstanding. The reality is that the AFL already has (and has always had) the power to open the books at any club at any time. It is part of the competition license agreement. The AFL chooses not to do it unless investigating possible breaches - leaving the governance to the clubs to themselves. However in these circumstances where they are about to loan $10m to $15m to a club (some clubs will be between $5m to $10m) and other clubs nothing at all if they choose to use their cash reserves, then they like a bank are able to establish conditions of the loan - and thi si what the debate and posturing is actually about.

Nothing in that article contradicts what I have said.

One point of order - the AFL does has the power to remove or add clubs - but only (as stated correctly in the article) with a 2/3 majority of the clubs voting in favour for it. It is a safeguard (as all constitutions should have) to ensure there is no unilateral misuse of power. However the AFL also has the right to maintain clubs in the competition and take over the adminstration of that club. They have actually done it before - Sydney. They also have the right to handle licenses they hold and control (currently GWS and Gold Coast) and restructure as they wish - which may from being be a full membership based organisation to selling the club license to private ownership.

Nothing in that article contradicts what I wrote.

And agreed that in an ideal world no organisation would want another organisation looking at their books. But reality is different.

If you don't want the loan, then the challenge for St.Kilda is to find a guaranteed $10m - $15m in the next 12 months.

And if anything St. Kilda / Bulldogs / North should seek an exemption from repayments of the loan based on the fact that these clubs ALREADY paid off that stadium that the AFL is borrowing against!

[Secret Kiel]

Firstly not a single club would WANT to open their books up to anyone if they don't have to. Some have a choice e.g. Richmond and West Coast. Some have a choice for a limited time e.g. Bulldogs. Most do not have a choice. That includes us.

Kennett is grandstanding. Basically he is saying - if you want to see us fully naked then you have to get naked as well. However the reality is this is just grandstanding. The reality is that the AFL already has (and has always had) the power to open the books at any club at any time. It is part of the competition license agreement. The AFL chooses not to do it unless investigating possible breaches - leaving the governance to the clubs to themselves. However in these circumstances where they are about to loan $10m to $15m to a club (some clubs will be between $5m to $10m) and other clubs nothing at all if they choose to use their cash reserves, then they like a bank are able to establish conditions of the loan - and thi si what the debate and posturing is actually about.

Nothing in that article contradicts what I have said.

One point of order - the AFL does has the power to remove or add clubs - but only (as stated correctly in the article) with a 2/3 majority of the clubs voting in favour for it. It is a safeguard (as all constitutions should have) to ensure there is no unilateral misuse of power. However the AFL also has the right to maintain clubs in the competition and take over the adminstration of that club. They have actually done it before - Sydney. They also have the right to handle licenses they hold and control (currently GWS and Gold Coast) and restructure as they wish - which may from being be a full membership based organisation to selling the club license to private ownership.

Nothing in that article contradicts what I wrote.

And agreed that in an ideal world no organisation would want another organisation looking at their books. But reality is different.

If you don't want the loan, then the challenge for St.Kilda is to find a guaranteed $10m - $15m in the next 12 months.

So what is the AFL hiding, Kennett is not grandstanding, he's had the balls to ask the obvious questions. The competition is one of the most profitable cash positive businesses in the country, they have a significant number of executives who would be earning around the $1 million per year mark, and then there is Gil and the board's remuneration and self appointed bonus scheme. They are clearly an overbloated administration clearly protecting self interests. And for a business that is so financially successful it seems odd that not only is our so-called future fund disproportionately and dangerously low, that we have had to sign up to a much bigger loan with condition's that allows people outside of the club the option to kill us off.

So NO, I hope Kennett continues to have the balls that clearly Bassett doesn't have, and demand the AFL open thier books.

And it is outrageous that there has been zero transparency by the club to put forward to the members the details of the proposal, specifically the details of what risks are involved with regards to how we can be killed off.

Where the hell is Bassett, I mean is he on the job?

[BackFromUSA]

Firstly not a single club would WANT to open their books up to anyone if they don't have to. Some have a choice e.g. Richmond and West Coast. Some have a choice for a limited time e.g. Bulldogs. Most do not have a choice. That includes us.

Kennett is grandstanding. Basically he is saying - if you want to see us fully naked then you have to get naked as well. However the reality is this is just grandstanding. The reality is that the AFL already has (and has always had) the power to open the books at any club at any time. It is part of the competition license agreement. The AFL chooses not to do it unless investigating possible breaches - leaving the governance to the clubs to themselves. However in these circumstances where they are about to loan $10m to $15m to a club (some clubs will be between $5m to $10m) and other clubs nothing at all if they choose to use their cash reserves, then they like a bank are able to establish conditions of the loan - and thi si what the debate and posturing is actually about.

Nothing in that article contradicts what I have said.

One point of order - the AFL does has the power to remove or add clubs - but only (as stated correctly in the article) with a 2/3 majority of the clubs voting in favour for it. It is a safeguard (as all constitutions should have) to ensure there is no unilateral misuse of power. However the AFL also has the right to maintain clubs in the competition and take over the adminstration of that club. They have actually done it before - Sydney. They also have the right to handle licenses they hold and control (currently GWS and Gold Coast) and restructure as they wish - which may from being be a full membership based organisation to selling the club license to private ownership.

Nothing in that article contradicts what I wrote.

And agreed that in an ideal world no organisation would want another organisation looking at their books. But reality is different.

If you don't want the loan, then the challenge for St.Kilda is to find a guaranteed $10m - $15m in the next 12 months.

So what is the AFL hiding, Kennett is not grandstanding, he's had the balls to ask the obvious questions. The competition is one of the most profitable cash positive businesses in the country, they have a significant number of executives who would be earning around the $1 million per year mark, and then there is Gil and the board's remuneration and self appointed bonus scheme. They are clearly an overbloated administration clearly protecting self interests. And for a business that is so financially successful it seems odd that not only is our so-called future fund disproportionately and dangerously low, that we have had to sign up to a much bigger loan with condition's that allows people outside of the club the option to kill us off.

So NO, I hope Kennett continues to have the balls that clearly Bassett doesn't have, and demand the AFL open thier books.

And it is outrageous that there has been zero transparency by the club to put forward to the members the details of the proposal, specifically the details of what risks are involved with regards to how we can be killed off.

Where the hell is Bassett, I mean is he on the job?

I am only explaining the competition structure as I was semi involved / one step away from it's evolution in the 90s.

As for the AFL revenue sources = each month lost of the season would equal hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue - money that usually goes as non loan allocations to the clubs, VFL and other feader competitions, U 18 comps, AFLW, GWS and Gold Coast and community programs and of course the future fund.

Ideally the sponsors and broadcasters can be delivered value to ensure that they only pay say 30% less than they were meant to.

To give you an idea of the magnitude of that - that eqautes to around $300 million lost by head office but it could be worse.

That is BEFORE losses that are incurred by clubs that I am told may vary between $100 million and $300 million depending on length of the delay to the start of the season and how long the season will last and whether it is

Can you now see why they are setting up a facility worth $600 million?

As the lender to the clubs. the AFL needs some surity that the loans can be repaid.

The negotiations will finalise with some sort of access reporting going to the AFL.

Clubs CAN opt out.

I prefer we opt out and raise $10m to $15m from supporters.

[Secret Kiel]

I am only explaining the competition structure as I was semi involved / one step away from it's evolution in the 90s.

As for the AFL revenue sources = each month lost of the season would equal hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue - money that usually goes as non loan allocations to the clubs, VFL and other feader competitions, U 18 comps, AFLW, GWS and Gold Coast and community programs and of course the future fund.

Ideally the sponsors and broadcasters can be delivered value to ensure that they only pay say 30% less than they were meant to.

To give you an idea of the magnitude of that - that eqautes to around $300 million lost by head office but it could be worse.

That is BEFORE losses that are incurred by clubs that I am told may vary between $100 million and $300 million depending on length of the delay to the start of the season and how long the season will last and whether it is

Can you now see why they are setting up a facility worth $600 million?

As the lender to the clubs. the AFL needs some surity that the loans can be repaid.

The negotiations will finalise with some sort of access reporting going to the AFL.

Clubs CAN opt out.

I prefer we opt out and raise $10m to $15m from supporters.

I'm tending to agree the club should be opting out as we are probably one of 3 or 4 Melbourne clubs that are the most exposed to being killed off by an administration style managment.

We should be looking to secure our own bank financing and be prepared to pay the extra costs for the loan facilty. We can still access the AFL funds at a later time if needed and just be prepared to pay the penalty fee.

We are moving into an era of quantitative easing and money printing. Time to join the movement.

[BackFromUSA]

I am only explaining the competition structure as I was semi involved / one step away from it's evolution in the 90s.

As for the AFL revenue sources = each month lost of the season would equal hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue - money that usually goes as non loan allocations to the clubs, VFL and other feader competitions, U 18 comps, AFLW, GWS and Gold Coast and community programs and of course the future fund.

Ideally the sponsors and broadcasters can be delivered value to ensure that they only pay say 30% less than they were meant to.

To give you an idea of the magnitude of that - that eqautes to around $300 million lost by head office but it could be worse.

That is BEFORE losses that are incurred by clubs that I am told may vary between $100 million and $300 million depending on length of the delay to the start of the season and how long the season will last and whether it is

Can you now see why they are setting up a facility worth $600 million?

As the lender to the clubs. the AFL needs some surity that the loans can be repaid.

The negotiations will finalise with some sort of access reporting going to the AFL.

Clubs CAN opt out.

I prefer we opt out and raise $10m to $15m from supporters.

I'm tending to agree the club should be opting out as we are probably one of 3 or 4 Melbourne clubs that are the most exposed to being killed off by an administration style managment.

We should be looking to secure our own bank financing and be prepared to pay the extra costs for the loan facilty. We can still access the AFL funds at a later time if needed and just be prepared to pay the penalty fee.

We are moving into an era of quantitative easing and money printing. Time to join the movement.

Banks won’t extend our current loans (around 5 million o believe) as no worthwhile asset to loan against. You need security to be given a loan - or a loan guarantor.

On a brighter note - the Saints featured me today on Instagram

[WellardSaint]

Quick one...referring to BFUSA saying club should raise a few million from members.
There's a lot of members with the top level packages, family memberships, reserved seats.
Does the club go to them, cap in hand?

There's thousands of members who have lost their jobs, they need refunds, they can't pay extra.

Where's all this money going to come from?

[kosifantutti]

On a brighter note - the Saints featured me today on Instagram

And Twitter


And Saintsational.

http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php? ... e686ae9639