Competitive Balance Fund

[Tiger44]

Not sure if this topic has been covered or not but I would appreciate one of you knowledgeable folk advising how the "Competitive Balance Fund" works? Do the recipient clubs need to repay? Do all clubs get access and once their "share" of the fund has been spent there is no going back to the well?

I understand we haven't been to the well but until I can understand the mechanics of how the system works then don't know if this is a good or bad thing! Any help would be appreciated thanks.

 

[feisty tige]

Not too sure myself, but I think it places limitations on what you can and cannot do as a club....

 

[TOT70]

My understanding is that the clubs make a submission to the AFL and explain why they need the money.  So far, the Bullies, Kangaroos and Dees have been "successful."  I also understand that RFC haven't applied even though they running a dodgy balance sheet, nor have Carlton, who are in a worse predicament.

The crux of the matter is that to receive funds under this arrangement a club must be "supporter-challenged" and unable to draw a crowd regardless of how they are performing on the field and, consequently, dependent upon the AFL for survival.  

RFC is the wrong type of basket-case for this assistance.  The CBF is obviously ear-marked to keep the competition able to put on 8 games every round and maximise TV money.  You can only assume that the AFL will hold all the aces in its dealings with clubs that depend on the CBF, especially if they need it on an ongoing basis.  If a Canberra consortium were to approach the AFL with an offer too good to refuse, our "Supporter-challenged" royal blue and white cousins would be on the first plane out of town unless they could demonstrate that they could survive on their own.

Just my opinion, of course.

 

[Tiger44]

Interesting response TOT. Pretty much how I see it operating. Just not sure how this becomes a fair criteria - keeps some clubs in the race to spend money elsewhere e.g. Melbourne and thier plethora of coaching staff.

 

[TOT70]

Melbourne are taking advantage of their "in-between" status. They don't have a huge number of members but their supporter base is large and, if pushed, influential. They know that the Kangas or the Bullies will get the push before them.

The money is there and they can access it because the other clubs let it happen. In return, Melbourne don't seek blockbuster status, sell home games and generally keep out of the way.

Can you imaging Eddie's bleating if Carton or Richmond were to get a million dollars through the CBF? It just won't happen because the other clubs know that if these two clubs get a leg up they will proceed to cut everyone's lunch for years. The teams that have received assistance have one thing in common: they are harmless, not necessarily on the field but in every other way.

 

[Leysy Days]

how stringent are the AFL looking at clubs spending though.

ie North Melbourne - have splashed the cash for Thompson & Hay the past 2 years..........

I'm not sure the AFL should be subsidising them to go out & chase players for big $$$$$

 

[Legends of 2017]

I think one thing the AFL demands before giving the money over is that clubs who ask for it have to pay 92% of the salary cap, not 95%. They have to cut costs etc.

 

[TOT70]

how stringent are the AFL looking at clubs spending though.

ie North Melbourne - have splashed the cash for Thompson & Hay the past 2 years..........

I'm not sure the AFL should be subsidising them to go out & chase players for big $$$$$

Yep. That one gets me too. 

The Bulldogs are holding one hand for assistance and are using the other to pay a huge part of Rawlings' wages and even some of Bowden's.  What is the point of giving them extra money?  They had no business getting involved in the Rawlings case in the first place and he didn't want to play for them.

The Hay, Thompson and Ottens deals have pushed up the trade value of good players to a ridiculous level.  Imagine if a real quality player like Simon Black wants to move clubs now!  Browny moved the year before this nonsense for picks 6 and 20.  If Black came up next year, the Lions would have to ask for three first round choices!

Bad management is bad management!  The CBF fills one purpose only: 16 clubs are needed to maximise TV income, chucking these clubs a few mill a year is a cheap way of ensuring it. 

And you're right.  The unfairness is crippling the clubs that people really want to watch.  Every advantage given to the Kangas, Bulldogs and co is another block to RFC's success.