JavaScript disabled. Please enable JavaScript to use My News, My Clippings, My Comments and user settings.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

AFL's ticking time bomb

Sydney Swans chairman Richard Colless.

Sydney Swans chairman Richard Colless. Photo: Paul Rovere

SYDNEY chairman Richard Colless has questioned the AFL's commitment to 10 clubs in Victoria in calling for a wide-ranging review of the competition and its structure.

Describing the disparity between rich and poor clubs as ''a ticking time bomb in the AFL universe'' the game's longest-serving chairman has called on the game to ''stop pussyfooting about the problem and put it on the table''.

Richard Colless' email

The AFL Commission and executive has responded to Colless' strongly worded proposal and has confirmed it will hold a two-day summit before the start of the 2013 season bringing together the 18 presidents and chief executives.

It is believed Colless has already put some of the wealthier clubs offside by proposing taking profits from blockbuster games and distributing them among the poorer clubs. He has also raised capping football department spending. In a letter obtained by The Age and distributed to all club presidents and the AFL, Colless has written: ''It is not being alarmist to state that in our view more than several clubs could be considered technically insolvent without the financial guarantee of the AFL.''

He described the Swans, 2012 premiers, as ''perpetually one bad season away from serious financial difficulty''.

Colless stressed yesterday he was not pushing for a reduction of clubs but wanted the AFL to clarify its position on retaining 10 clubs in Victoria. ''As a business model I'm interested to hear how the AFL sees the competition in five years,'' said Colless, ''not 30 years as they have looked at in their models.

''Do we want a team in Tasmania? Are we wedded to 10 clubs in Victoria? Is that set in stone because if not that changes the debate. Personally I would walk over broken glass to retain all our clubs but I want to hear where the AFL sees it.

''I'm not pushing any particular line but I'm not sure if the AFL has any firm answers on how Port Adelaide, Brisbane and the Western Bulldogs for example continue to defy gravity when capital and current expenditure in football costs continue to jump.

''The poorer clubs are being seen as a drag on the wealthy clubs. Do we just allow the market economy to rule and everyone take care of their own or do we continue with the socialistic approach. Do AFL subsidies take away creativity?''

Colless' push for a summit was applauded by most fellow presidents increasingly frustrated at attending AFL ''information sessions'' rather than debating the growing concerns over the games lopsided structure - a structure Colless warned in his letter would ''ultimately have an adverse impact on supporters, sponsors and media rights''.

''This is not a debate over whether we have one or two substitutes,'' Colless told The Age. ''That is not something we need to be interested in. If we are to have a two-day summit without pushing our own agendas we need to put it on the table that half the AFL clubs are struggling to survive.

''If their results on field continue to increasingly mirror their bank balances then we have a very big problem.'' Earlier this year Commission chairman Mike Fitzpatrick described the financial burdens carried by struggling clubs as ''unfinished business'' for AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou.

In terms of Victorian clubs North Melbourne, the Bulldogs, Richmond and St Kilda are all still battling varying degrees of seven-figure debts while the Kangaroos, Saints, Bulldogs and Melbourne would all lose significant amounts of money this year without AFL subsidies.

North Melbourne tried - but failed - two years ago to reach a deal to play seven home games in Tasmania. It currently has a two-home-game deal with Hobart, Hawthorn plays four home games in Launceston and St Kilda is looking to relocate an increasing number of home games to Wellington.

''We've had a decade of unbridled growth and good news,'' said Colless, ''but the question now is that still the case? I'm not so sure. You can't have clubs losing $3 million a year, as is the case with Port Adelaide without some alarm bells ringing.

''An option that should be debated is a return to full equalisation of match-day ticket revenues which would compensate for the accepted inequities in the draw (accentuated by having two expansion teams) and assist in addressing the burgeoning financial divide.''

Colless added yesterday that the clubs needed to revisit the debate of capping increasing football department costs - a push strongly opposed by wealthier clubs such as Collingwood, West Coast and Hawthorn. The spiralling costs of football staff has raised concerns at AFL headquarters and the commission table.

The full email

From: Richard Colless
Sent: Friday, 14 September 2012 5:08 PM
To: 'Tony Peek
Cc: 'Andrew Ireland'; 'Mcmaster, Andrew N'


Our club believes that there is a ticking time bomb in the AFL universe. Namely the growing disparity amongst the "haves and have nots."

There's a real bifurcation developing. Say 9/10 clubs in the first category and 8/9 in the other.

None of this is revelationary.

However, given the additional costs that need to be borne by clubs eg compulsory ASAs, Rookies (plus them now being optional), Career ending Insurance, inequitable commercial fixtures due to preferred draw for clubs in blockbusters, the gap is inevitably going to widen.

I can't speak with authority about any clubs other than mine. But we are perpetually one bad season away from serious financial difficulty. We have no working capital or reserves. We'll turn a profit this year because we've got into a preliminary final and we've deferred/cancelled various programs. It is not being alarmist to state that in our view more than several clubs could be considered technically insolvent without the financial guarantee of the AFL.

The rich club set the standard with the ability to offer high payment to staff. There is also real pressure on clubs to upgrade facilities often with debt. As the AFL is aware we have decided that this is something our club will not do. Rather we will manage with much lower cost refurbishments which while frustrating we think is prudent given the circumstances.

All of that said, there is no simple solution that is likely to be instantly acceptable for all Clubs, but make the point that maintaining a competitive football department is increasingly problematic for roughly half the competition. If on-field performance mirrors off-field financial clout, the outcome will be a lopsided competition which will ultimately have an adverse impact on supporters, sponsors and media rights.

An option that should be debated is a return to full equalisation of match day ticket revenues which would compensate for the accepted inequities in the draw (accentuated by having 2 expansion teams) and assist in addressing the burgeoning financial divide.

From a more strategic perspective, and perhaps for another time, we would also urge the AFL to again consider addressing match day ticketing arrangements that impact all clubs. The impact of current match day “clipping the ticket” arrangements are taking a massive amount out of the game on a weekly basis, and we have the experience whereby Ticketek make more revenue in some games than we do from match day ticket sales.

The preceding should not be construed in any way as a criticism of the AFL or of the financially stronger clubs but rather the basis of a discussion as to where, based on current trends, the competition might be in say 5 years time.



46 comments so far

  • Sounds to me that Colless is just getting ready to go to the AFL and ask for a handout. He's probably annoyed that the bosses are spending big buck at cross town rivals GWS.

    If Colless wants a share of the blockbusters gate receipts, then perhaps he'll be happy to split the 8 guaranteed points the Swans will get from their 2 local derbies each year.

    And if he is so hell bent on a level playing field then he should agree that all clubs are on exactly the same salary cap with no extra granted based on which cities the clubs are based in.

    Olympic Park
    Date and time
    October 17, 2012, 9:16AM
    • "perpetually one bad season away from serious financial difficulty'"

      Isn't he running the club?

      The AFL has rocks in its head if it takes any advice form this tool.

      Date and time
      October 17, 2012, 9:41AM
    • Your a very smart man Duck

      General Soreness
      Date and time
      October 17, 2012, 9:43AM
    • Spot on mate. Colless and the Swans are in a perfect situation. Its the AFLs front line and comments like that will ensure that the Swans are treated with kid gloves by the AFL - everything from MRP leniency (it goes all the way back to Dunkley in 1996, through to Barry Hall numerous times) to handy draws. And the extra 10% in their salary cap is a farce and totally agree with Kennett and others who say its a relic from the 90's. The club has won two flags in the past 7 years, and is a perennial finalist - I'm not sure the club needs the extra $800,000 or so in its cap, so it can go out and snare the best available young forward (Tippett) after just winning a flag!

      Don't get me wrong - I have a soft spot for the Swans and hope they remain competitive, but in this socialist system of the AFL, it seems that the Swans are treated a little more equal than others.

      I do agree though with Colless that 10 Victorian clubs is unsustainable, but Im not going to mention clubs who should be the crosshairs.

      Date and time
      October 17, 2012, 9:49AM
    • yeah, good one. Attack the Swans and display your ignorance. If you actually read and understood Colless comments you would comprehend his concern is with the game of Australian Rules and the survival of all existing clubs, in all states. All Victorian and NON Victorian Clubs need to be strong and healthy for the game to continue to grow and appeal for future generations. Currently the Saints, Dees, Bulldogs and North are struggling to compete with the growing costs of running a football departments. Their are many imbalances in the AFL e.g. When was the last time Collingwood played the Cats in Geelong? etc. All these matters like Sydney's living costs need to be examined in a fair and open way and that's why he wrote to all AFL clubs and the AFL itself. Small views like yourself are the death to the growing future of this great game.

      Date and time
      October 17, 2012, 10:08AM
    • No if you know anything about politics he is getting on the front foot to try and divert attention his club is getting about their extra salary cap room.

      Nothing from him ever and now he starts getting vocal?

      Date and time
      October 17, 2012, 11:20AM
    • @dee - speaking of ignorance - what has Collingwood playing Geelong at Geelong got to do with this article? If you want to go down your path - why do Sydney always get the home game blockbuster against Collingwood in the middle of the season? - let them come down and play the Pies on the MCG instead of the Olympic stadium turned rugby ground made into an oval.

      Date and time
      October 17, 2012, 11:42AM
    • Equalisation of match day revenue is the most ridiculous concept. Tickets do not cost the same everywhere, so why should some of my hard earned money go to supporting too many teams in Victoria? Our ticket prices here are twice what they are in Melbourne. This is why West Coast and Freo make so much money, from our pockets. Why should it go to support teams I wouldn't care if they disappeared.

      Date and time
      October 17, 2012, 12:27PM
    • @ General Soreness - I assume you mean "You are ....". "Your" makes no sense.

      Date and time
      October 17, 2012, 2:28PM
  • 'I'm not pushing any particular line but........" R. Colless

    There is always a 'but'!

    Did Mr Colless make comment on the 'equalisation' fund or was this strategically omitted?

    Roy F
    Brunswick Street
    Date and time
    October 17, 2012, 9:23AM

    More comments

    Make a comment

    You are logged in as [Logout]

    All information entered below may be published.

    Error: Please enter your screen name.

    Error: Your Screen Name must be less than 255 characters.

    Error: Your Location must be less than 255 characters.

    Error: Please enter your comment.

    Error: Your Message must be less than 300 words.

    Post to

    You need to have read and accepted the Conditions of Use.

    Thank you

    Your comment has been submitted for approval.

    Comments are moderated and are generally published if they are on-topic and not abusive.

    Related Coverage

    Follow Us on Facebook

    Featured advertisers