AFL loan arrangement details

[saintspremiers]

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/onl ... 54gsn.html

f*** you Gil.

Just what you want - the small clubs to suffer once again.

Let’s hope Peter Gordon smacks this prick of oxygen theif of a CEO we have.

2/3’s of the clubs are effectively under AFL administration so unless the AFL yields more most clubs will be basket cases next year, and the wealthy ones will destroy the rest.

I don’t know what Gill gets off on, but it’s devious and deceitful and he has now shown his true colours. Just another turd like Dimwit was. Same material.

[saintspremiers]

So no one cares about the future of our game??

Are you all busy watching old replays just hoping this will magically disappear and everything will just go back to normal?

Things will be dramatically different next season !

Will our AFLW team even exist in 2021? That may be the first cost cutting thing to go, along with half our permanent staff.

Will be a very basic St Kilda next year

[Joffa Burns]

So no one cares about the future of our game??

Are you all busy watching old replays just hoping this will magically disappear and everything will just go back to normal?

Things will be dramatically different next season !

Will our AFLW team even exist in 2021? That may be the first cost cutting thing to go, along with half our permanent staff.

Will be a very basic St Kilda next year

Sorry saintspremiers but I don't agree with you in this instance.

Why should the AFL continue to practice socialism and disadvantage the successful clubs for the perennial basket cases and expansion clubs and continue to let them accrue debt that the competition can no longer afford?

Yes the big clubs get the fixtures and prime time spots but that is because they draw the revenue.
The equalisation funds have been propping up the under performers for years and now that the AFL's cash reserves have dried up changes will need to be made.

How is this different to any business suffering the effects of reduced or diminished revenue due to Covid-19?

My understanding is the AFL distributes to each club per season at least enough money to cover the TPP and the soft cap. From there the AFL distributes equalisation finds and top up funds to clubs such as the Saints.

If you were a Hawthorn or Collingwood supporter you'd probably be asking why the funds your team generates are allocated to under-performing clubs like the Saints.

In business if you go into administration and administrator is appointed to oversee and operate the company, how is this any different to what the AFL proposes and why wouldn't the AFL take more control of clubs that are losing money for the survival of the whole competition?

Hawthorn nearly merged with Melbourne in 1996 as they were broke, now they are a powerhouse which shows that clubs can survive and be profitable if run and managed well.

The AFL won't let us go under, but it is up to us to manage the club well to be successful and self reliant.

[older saint]

So no one cares about the future of our game??

Are you all busy watching old replays just hoping this will magically disappear and everything will just go back to normal?

Things will be dramatically different next season !

Will our AFLW team even exist in 2021? That may be the first cost cutting thing to go, along with half our permanent staff.

Will be a very basic St Kilda next year

Sorry saintspremiers but I don't agree with you in this instance.

Why should the AFL continue to practice socialism and disadvantage the successful clubs for the perennial basket cases and expansion clubs and continue to let them accrue debt that the competition can no longer afford?

Yes the big clubs get the fixtures and prime time spots but that is because they draw the revenue.
The equalisation funds have been propping up the under performers for years and now that the AFL's cash reserves have dried up changes will need to be made.

How is this different to any business suffering the effects of reduced or diminished revenue due to Covid-19?

My understanding is the AFL distributes to each club per season at least enough money to cover the TPP and the soft cap. From there the AFL distributes equalisation finds and top up funds to clubs such as the Saints.

If you were a Hawthorn or Collingwood supporter you'd probably be asking why the funds your team generates are allocated to under-performing clubs like the Saints.

In business if you go into administration and administrator is appointed to oversee and operate the company, how is this any different to what the AFL proposes and why wouldn't the AFL take more control of clubs that are losing money for the survival of the whole competition?

Hawthorn nearly merged with Melbourne in 1996 as they were broke, now they are a powerhouse which shows that clubs can survive and be profitable if run and managed well.

The AFL won't let us go under, but it is up to us to manage the club well to be successful and self reliant.

The uneven draw is the saviour of many clubs, and the AFL ( forget right now) have been willing to do this as they still end up in front from it.

Play Ess v Coll twice, Rich v Coll twice , Derbies twice, etc means more exposure for these clubs, more sponsorship dollars and more dollars for AFL through TV rights. This then requires StKilda, WB, NM etc to be entitled to more $$ from the AFL due to the fact they lose out on sponsorship dollars by not getting these game slots. So it does have a little chicken and egg about it,

That said the history of STK says reads like a continual all paper over cracks job. Even of recent times, great run, a decade of finals appearances, high membership and externally things looking repaired and then go and commit to a bone head decision like Seaford that not only commits $$ to create but also has a flow on of discontent, linked with a drop off on field at the end of an era and then poor hiring/ reconstructing decisions.

Before this once on a 100 year event we were off field back to the equivalent on field position of 2002, optimism based on a plan, committed financially and hoping to be fruitful form these decisions over the next 10 years. Unfortunately this virus has come along, which won't last forever, but will set the club back 2-3 years IMO off field. We, and i would guess NM, WB and as well as GC ( who is the AFL's bitch) will move into a relationship where the AFL is their pimp until they can work their way out of it, Trips to Cairns , Darwin, ( my guess wouldn't be China for at least a year) , and anywhere else they want teams to play will become the norm for these clubs until they work themselves out of it.
We may also see the reinvention of the SOS, type fund raisers. I know clubs have done this to build facilities, but these could be to directly pay down debt.

The only thing we can hope is they may become more prudent with how they spend their money and also players across the entire AFL may get a greater appreciation of the privilege and opportunity they have, This may lead to greater connection with fans, increasing membership and the link between the club and the supporters.

I think sometimes players miss the point that we as fans support the jumper and who wears it ( as a general rule) and not the individual.

[Annoyedsaint]

This is why I’ve said we needed to rid ourselves of debt.
No one saves for a rainy day or safeguards themselves anymore. Good luck raising funds to clear debt now unless it come from a Bassett, Fox, Eric Bana or a Shane Warne for example.

IF we get through this surely someone runs the club with no more dumb decisions (Seaford).

Moorabbin combined with a better Stadium deal and actually making the finals for once would be profitable.
In that sense I think we’ve turned the corner but the existing debt is such a burden at the moment.

Bassett is worth how much? If he wants a club and is a true supporter, stick your hands in your pocket and help out. It’s not as if he needs it.

I’d rather be around and win 10 spoons in a row than be filed away in archives forever.

[longtimesaint]

This is why I’ve said we needed to rid ourselves of debt.
No one saves for a rainy day or safeguards themselves anymore. Good luck raising funds to clear debt now unless it come from a Bassett, Fox, Eric Bana or a Shane Warne for example.

IF we get through this surely someone runs the club with no more dumb decisions (Seaford).

Moorabbin combined with a better Stadium deal and actually making the finals for once would be profitable.
In that sense I think we’ve turned the corner but the existing debt is such a burden at the moment.

Bassett is worth how much? If he wants a club and is a true supporter, stick your hands in your pocket and help out. It’s not as if he needs it.

I’d rather be around and win 10 spoons in a row than be filed away in archives forever.

What people need to realise is that a large part of our debt is due to redevelopin* Moorabbin to a 20 million dollar facility.
The debt is only an issue in these times when there is no revenue.
The stronger clubs like Richmond and Collingwood have the MCG where they are given blockbuster games to build their cash reserves.

[BarryGrogan]

So no one cares about the future of our game??

Are you all busy watching old replays just hoping this will magically disappear and everything will just go back to normal?

Things will be dramatically different next season !

Will our AFLW team even exist in 2021? That may be the first cost cutting thing to go, along with half our permanent staff.

Will be a very basic St Kilda next year

Sorry saintspremiers but I don't agree with you in this instance.

Why should the AFL continue to practice socialism and disadvantage the successful clubs for the perennial basket cases and expansion clubs and continue to let them accrue debt that the competition can no longer afford?

Yes the big clubs get the fixtures and prime time spots but that is because they draw the revenue.
The equalisation funds have been propping up the under performers for years and now that the AFL's cash reserves have dried up changes will need to be made.

How is this different to any business suffering the effects of reduced or diminished revenue due to Covid-19?

My understanding is the AFL distributes to each club per season at least enough money to cover the TPP and the soft cap. From there the AFL distributes equalisation finds and top up funds to clubs such as the Saints.

If you were a Hawthorn or Collingwood supporter you'd probably be asking why the funds your team generates are allocated to under-performing clubs like the Saints.

In business if you go into administration and administrator is appointed to oversee and operate the company, how is this any different to what the AFL proposes and why wouldn't the AFL take more control of clubs that are losing money for the survival of the whole competition?

Hawthorn nearly merged with Melbourne in 1996 as they were broke, now they are a powerhouse which shows that clubs can survive and be profitable if run and managed well.

The AFL won't let us go under, but it is up to us to manage the club well to be successful and self reliant.

That makes very little sense to me.

I actually thought it was parody initially.


"Why should the AFL continue to practice socialism and disadvantage the successful clubs for the perennial basket cases"???

The AFL don't practice Socialism! They practice absolute textbook trickle-down economics.

There's this weird notion out there that the AFL give us money to keep us afloat, at the expense of the comp. It's baffling.

Only 4 clubs could survive a season without footy apparently. 4. Out of 18.

And apparently we're being given money at the expense of the comp??! How would these 4 clubs go without the 14 other clubs?

They wouldn't exist. The league wouldn't exist. This notion that the AFL keeps giving the deadbeat child cash to keep them paying their rent at the expense of the good kids' inheritance is just nonsense.

The AFL support 18 clubs with the money generated by 18 clubs. Richmond don't make money by playing themselves on a Saturday arvo each week.

Without the trickle down economic model - there would be no league. There'd be only 4 clubs that could pay their own way, but as their opponents dropped off, they'd soon disappear also as there'd be no competition.


Socialism simply wouldn't work. 14 clubs just can't pull the crowds and the $$s in on their own. However when packaged together, it's a force of nature that generates nearly $800m in profit! To be clear - that's not $800m profit DESPITE the smaller clubs - that's because of the 18 team comp. That's not a case of "Oh man, it could be $900m if we didn't have to prop up North, the Dogs and the Saints every year!"

Without 18 teams, it would be significantly less. Without the AFLW even, it would drop off quickly. Without the $m's pumped into the Gold Coast and GWS - it would fall away quickly. AFLW and 18 teams aren't an expense to the detriment of the game - they're an investment that provide immediate returns.

The Big 4 of Collingwood, Richmond, West Coast and Hawthorn need us. The AFL need us. They need a national 18 team comp to generate the $800m profit that allows the league to maintain the biggest sport in the land, to buy stadiums outright and to save enough cash to survive an entire season without football.

Even the Big 4 received over $10m each in 'handouts'. And that's in addition to the primetime fixture they receive every year. Real Socialism would be to have all clubs playing at the same home ground, getting an evenly lucrative fixture each year, and getting the same cash handouts each year.

[Vazelos]

Brilliantly articulated Barry Grogan well said.
We filled Marvel Stadium for a decade and helped the AFL pay it off our stadium deal was rubbish.
We lost our way for awhile but last 3 years there has been some strong work completed. Moorabbin development a game changer, Marvel Stadium new deal will be a game changer when we start performing better on field and attract some decent crowds.
Football department and recruiting has looked much better of late we are heading in the right direction....
Th big 4 and AFL make money because of an 18 club competition and TV pay big dollars for it..
They get preference to prime times that sell stronger to corporate australia so we should get compensated....
As Barry Grogan said they can’t play themselves every week....

[BarryGrogan]

We filled Marvel Stadium for a decade and helped the AFL pay it off our stadium deal was rubbish.
We lost our way for awhile but last 3 years there has been some strong work completed. Moorabbin development a game changer, Marvel Stadium new deal will be a game changer when we start performing better on field and attract some decent crowds.
Football department and recruiting has looked much better of late we are heading in the right direction....

Look, we suck. I'm not arguing that.

What I'm arguing is that I don't believe that that really matters much in the scheme of things. What we cost the league to 'prop up', we bring in with ease and then some in our input to the overall profits of the league. Which is what it's all about.


Now having said that - it'd be good if we made more money. It can't hurt. But in reality, I don't think that even matters much, as the end game is to make money for the greater AFL. That's the whole point of having an AFL and not simply having clubs go it alone. That model doesn't work.

Obviously once in 100 year scenarios can arise like a pandemic, which means that the money dries up. But even if we could sustain a season without footy like only 4 other clubs can - there's not going to be a comp anyway. Those clubs would survive a season, but they'd be dead within a further 12 months with no competition to play in.

[To the top]

Interesting to read the opinions of Samuels in the media today

Perhaps Graham needs a history lesson on the travails of the Docklands including the Stapled Debt offering which financed the construction along with bank debt (so effectively 100% funded by borrowings from a particular - inept - bank the attraction to Stapled Debt investors including a complex ATO ruling - so tax evasion)

The Docklands project has cost a succession of people (and a bank) a hell of a lot of money all the way back to a distressed asset valuation

And now Graham lauds it’s ownership by the AFL and values it at $750 Million to $1 Trillion, it now being the security on offer for a $600 Million loan to survive the AFL

It fell to AFL ownership as it did, as a distressed asset worth nothing other than site clearance and re-zoning, so for an acorn consideration

It is a single use asset which depreciates any valuation

[Joffa Burns]

So no one cares about the future of our game??

Are you all busy watching old replays just hoping this will magically disappear and everything will just go back to normal?

Things will be dramatically different next season !

Will our AFLW team even exist in 2021? That may be the first cost cutting thing to go, along with half our permanent staff.

Will be a very basic St Kilda next year

Sorry saintspremiers but I don't agree with you in this instance.

Why should the AFL continue to practice socialism and disadvantage the successful clubs for the perennial basket cases and expansion clubs and continue to let them accrue debt that the competition can no longer afford?

Yes the big clubs get the fixtures and prime time spots but that is because they draw the revenue.
The equalisation funds have been propping up the under performers for years and now that the AFL's cash reserves have dried up changes will need to be made.

How is this different to any business suffering the effects of reduced or diminished revenue due to Covid-19?

My understanding is the AFL distributes to each club per season at least enough money to cover the TPP and the soft cap. From there the AFL distributes equalisation finds and top up funds to clubs such as the Saints.

If you were a Hawthorn or Collingwood supporter you'd probably be asking why the funds your team generates are allocated to under-performing clubs like the Saints.

In business if you go into administration and administrator is appointed to oversee and operate the company, how is this any different to what the AFL proposes and why wouldn't the AFL take more control of clubs that are losing money for the survival of the whole competition?

Hawthorn nearly merged with Melbourne in 1996 as they were broke, now they are a powerhouse which shows that clubs can survive and be profitable if run and managed well.

The AFL won't let us go under, but it is up to us to manage the club well to be successful and self reliant.

That makes very little sense to me.

I actually thought it was parody initially.


"Why should the AFL continue to practice socialism and disadvantage the successful clubs for the perennial basket cases"???

The AFL don't practice Socialism! They practice absolute textbook trickle-down economics.

There's this weird notion out there that the AFL give us money to keep us afloat, at the expense of the comp. It's baffling.

Only 4 clubs could survive a season without footy apparently. 4. Out of 18.

And apparently we're being given money at the expense of the comp??! How would these 4 clubs go without the 14 other clubs?

They wouldn't exist. The league wouldn't exist. This notion that the AFL keeps giving the deadbeat child cash to keep them paying their rent at the expense of the good kids' inheritance is just nonsense.

The AFL support 18 clubs with the money generated by 18 clubs. Richmond don't make money by playing themselves on a Saturday arvo each week.

Without the trickle down economic model - there would be no league. There'd be only 4 clubs that could pay their own way, but as their opponents dropped off, they'd soon disappear also as there'd be no competition.


Socialism simply wouldn't work. 14 clubs just can't pull the crowds and the $$s in on their own. However when packaged together, it's a force of nature that generates nearly $800m in profit! To be clear - that's not $800m profit DESPITE the smaller clubs - that's because of the 18 team comp. That's not a case of "Oh man, it could be $900m if we didn't have to prop up North, the Dogs and the Saints every year!"

Without 18 teams, it would be significantly less. Without the AFLW even, it would drop off quickly. Without the $m's pumped into the Gold Coast and GWS - it would fall away quickly. AFLW and 18 teams aren't an expense to the detriment of the game - they're an investment that provide immediate returns.

The Big 4 of Collingwood, Richmond, West Coast and Hawthorn need us. The AFL need us. They need a national 18 team comp to generate the $800m profit that allows the league to maintain the biggest sport in the land, to buy stadiums outright and to save enough cash to survive an entire season without football.

Even the Big 4 received over $10m each in 'handouts'. And that's in addition to the primetime fixture they receive every year. Real Socialism would be to have all clubs playing at the same home ground, getting an evenly lucrative fixture each year, and getting the same cash handouts each year.

I think you are confusing yourself Barry and actually arguing against your own point of view.
You state the AFL model is trickle down economics but if this is the case what is the equalisation fund and why do clubs like St Kilda receive double distribution from the AFL as Collingwood.
This is in fact the opposite of trickle down theory.

My understanding is the AFL has always agreed to distribute the TPP to the clubs and part of the soft cap (if not all, can't recall).

To suggest the league would only run with 4 clubs is extreme and ridiculous, illogical and makes no sense. Who has remotely suggested a competition of 4 teams except you? What makes sense is to assess the competition without the basket cases like the expansion clubs and clubs like the Saints.

Without financial modelling it is impossible to understand the revenue V cost analysis of the competition without 2, 4 or 6 of the current teams, your suggestion that it is either the full book or 4 teams is fanciful.

A fiscally responsible AFL will be looking at a reduced competition eliminating the clubs who do not contribute positively to the overall profitability of the competition.

If you do not think the tops self sufficient clubs prop up the basket cases like the Saints please explain why in 2018 the Collingwood distribution sat at around $10M while the Saints received around $19M.

Happy to agree to disagree Barry but it looks a lot more like socialism that trickle down economics to me.
The AFL have just leveraged their main asset and the balance sheet will be looking very ugly, the AFL would be remiss if it is not assessing its cost base and modelling a reduced competition by way of merger or relocation. Would they be more profitable if they were to merge, finish or relocated the four teams that are costing them $90M per annum being Brisbane, GWS, GCS & the Saints.

[Shaggy]

Interesting to read the opinions of Samuels in the media today

Perhaps Graham needs a history lesson on the travails of the Docklands including the Stapled Debt offering which financed the construction along with bank debt (so effectively 100% funded by borrowings from a particular - inept - bank the attraction to Stapled Debt investors including a complex ATO ruling - so tax evasion)

The Docklands project has cost a succession of people (and a bank) a hell of a lot of money all the way back to a distressed asset valuation

And now Graham lauds it’s ownership by the AFL and values it at $750 Million to $1 Trillion, it now being the security on offer for a $600 Million loan to survive the AFL

It fell to AFL ownership as it did, as a distressed asset worth nothing other than site clearance and re-zoning, so for an acorn consideration

It is a single use asset which depreciates any valuation

Indirectly you are supporting Samuels.

The AFL has just managed to obtain $600 million funding at a time of cash flow crisis across the economy.

They have done that on the back of a former distressed asset which is valued in the books at less than $200m.

The bank obviously believes it is worth more and more importantly supports the AFL management and cash flow based on history.

The AFL has pulled a huge rabbit out of the hat with $600 million funding. They genuinely have the funds to keep all clubs afloat and restructure despite planning for a strong revenue contraction.

Obviously the loan covenants will be strict. I assume the bank will not simply allow the AFL to distribute the funds to all the clubs without form of recourse. It has to be done by way of loans and subject to cash flow criteria to meet the covenants.

I think what Gil and his helpers have being able to pull off is terrific. David Crawford would be proud.

[samuraisaint]

So no one cares about the future of our game??

Are you all busy watching old replays just hoping this will magically disappear and everything will just go back to normal?

Things will be dramatically different next season !

Will our AFLW team even exist in 2021? That may be the first cost cutting thing to go, along with half our permanent staff.

Will be a very basic St Kilda next year

Sorry saintspremiers but I don't agree with you in this instance.

Why should the AFL continue to practice socialism and disadvantage the successful clubs for the perennial basket cases and expansion clubs and continue to let them accrue debt that the competition can no longer afford?

Yes the big clubs get the fixtures and prime time spots but that is because they draw the revenue.
The equalisation funds have been propping up the under performers for years and now that the AFL's cash reserves have dried up changes will need to be made.

How is this different to any business suffering the effects of reduced or diminished revenue due to Covid-19?

My understanding is the AFL distributes to each club per season at least enough money to cover the TPP and the soft cap. From there the AFL distributes equalisation finds and top up funds to clubs such as the Saints.

If you were a Hawthorn or Collingwood supporter you'd probably be asking why the funds your team generates are allocated to under-performing clubs like the Saints.

In business if you go into administration and administrator is appointed to oversee and operate the company, how is this any different to what the AFL proposes and why wouldn't the AFL take more control of clubs that are losing money for the survival of the whole competition?

Hawthorn nearly merged with Melbourne in 1996 as they were broke, now they are a powerhouse which shows that clubs can survive and be profitable if run and managed well.

The AFL won't let us go under, but it is up to us to manage the club well to be successful and self reliant.

And p1ss p00r efforts like our second half against North, which deflates supporter expectations and kills off potential members are the very thing that inhibit growth. Some of the players who did not stand up in that second half including high draft picks who have been at the club for years must be traded out at the end of the year (I won't say season because I don't think there'll be much of one).

[BarryGrogan]

I think you are confusing yourself Barry and actually arguing against your own point of view.
You state the AFL model is trickle down economics but if this is the case what is the equalisation fund and why do clubs like St Kilda receive double distribution from the AFL as Collingwood.
This is in fact the opposite of trickle down theory.

No it's not.

That's like saying 'why does a pensioner get 100 bucks a fortnight more From the government than Gina Rinehardt'!

The trickle down is scraps, compared to the real handouts that happen at the top.


The AFL gift the big clubs with handouts beyond belief compared to a $7-8m cash payment!

Blockbuster fixtures EVERY year. Primetime games EVERY year.

Just try to comprehend the sponsorship dollars that flow in from that exposure. Just imagine the membership that follows. The supporters that jump on. The brand exposure. Being able to lure the big fish at lower dollars due the 'big game factor'.

Ask Matt Finnis if he'd prefer that to Sunday arvo games at Docklands plus some cash?


It's a straight up no brainer why there's an 'equalisation fund'. It's the actual literal defintion of trickle down!

[BarryGrogan]

Without financial modelling it is impossible to understand the revenue V cost analysis of the competition without 2, 4 or 6 of the current teams, your suggestion that it is either the full book or 4 teams is fanciful.

That's not my suggestion.

That's precisely what the AFL said in order to get the 16 clubs to agree to the Gold Coast/GWS expansion.

It was reported only yesterday that only 4 clubs are self-sufficient enough financially to survive a season without football. And 1 of them almost solely relies on pokies to be in that group.

Work that out will you. An $800m profit for the league - with only 4 clubs actually financially secure??

Tells me that the league flourishing is due to a group effort. It's not individual clubs propping anyone up.

A fiscally responsible AFL will be looking at a reduced competition eliminating the clubs who do not contribute positively to the overall profitability of the competition.

What was the AFL's profit prior to 18 teams?

What was it last year?

Now tell me that any club isn't contributing.


Given only about 6 make a profit (a tiny one at that too), I'm not sure WTF the AFL are going to once they eliminate 12 clubs??

If you do not think the tops self sufficient clubs prop up the basket cases like the Saints please explain why in 2018 the Collingwood distribution sat at around $10M while the Saints received around $19M.

It's obvious.

We wouldn't exist without Collingwood. We simply don't, and never ever have generated the support, crowds and interest to function as a profitable football club.

The flipside is that the AFL need 18 clubs to function. Collingwood need 17 opponents to survive.

If the AFL were Socialist, it'd have been dead years ago. In isolation, football clubs aren't viable. They lose shitloads. Always have. That's why they went national.
The only way they actually make money, is if they have a huge following AND they get handed the exposure.

So trickle down economics is the best way to generate the most exposure and income for the league, whilst retaining the 18 clubs they need to survive.

Collingwood would die if they could only sell their product to 75% of their current audience. Or, they'd be a huge club in a suburban league somewhere.

Happy to agree to disagree Barry but it looks a lot more like socialism that trickle down economics to me.
The AFL have just leveraged their main asset and the balance sheet will be looking very ugly, the AFL would be remiss if it is not assessing its cost base and modelling a reduced competition by way of merger or relocation. Would they be more profitable if they were to merge, finish or relocated the four teams that are costing them $90M per annum being Brisbane, GWS, GCS & the Saints.

No. They wouldn't. That's exactly what the AFL have literally been telling us for years.

Sydney get COLA. Cost the AFL squillions - but overall they add far more to the game than what they cost. Brisbane the same.

Gold Coast too.


I have no doubt that the AFL will look different next year and beyond.
But when you're making $800m profits, your model is sound.

Times aren't tough because of outgoings - it's because revenue has literally ceased entirely.

[shanegrambeau]

Agree with Barry on many points above. They need us and although McQuire and co. like to remind us how they only get 8 mil, they give us 20 mil, they know we are part of the ecosystem. Thing is, we have to 'know our place'..which means Sunday twilight in the middle of winter and dwindling attendances that go along with it.
I have a mate who is an Everton fan in premier League. Can you imagine how smaller teams survive in their environment, with no cap?

[Secret Kiel]

What interests me is the clubs who don't want the AFL to look at thier books. Anyone hazard a guess at what they might be hiding?