Recently in cycling 11 of the pro teams have formed an association to protect their own interests. In that sport the teams are much less linked to the governing body, however.
AFL has a players association. Is an association that looks after the best interest of the clubs -- and against the face of the AFL -- feasible? Or are AFL clubs too closely (financially and legally) linked to the parent body?
I'm guessing with a few teams already living off a drip feed of AFL funds it would be unlikely.
Correct me if I‘m wrong, but the clubs can already over-ride the AFL. I can‘t recall it happening any time recently though — the AFL only has to “own†a third of the clubs to stop this power.
No
Read the agreement that Clubs signed up to when the AFL commission was formed. Think you will find, that Clubs own nothing.
Recently in cycling 11 of the pro teams have formed an association to protect their own interests. In that sport the teams are much less linked to the governing body, however.
AFL has a players association. Is an association that looks after the best interest of the clubs -- and against the face of the AFL -- feasible? Or are AFL clubs too closely (financially and legally) linked to the parent body?
I'm guessing with a few teams already living off a drip feed of AFL funds it would be unlikely.
Finance power lies in the players' hands, not the AFL. Without them, there is no game. It doesn't matter whether the AFL controls clubs or not. A properly organised 'union' of sorts that genuinely looks after the players' interests, would be the most powerful body in the sport. They would always win, if push came to shove. There would be no governmental or legal interference, as there can be with standard unions. If players actually striked - game over, literally.
Head office in Berlin will never allow it.
theoretically if essendon, collingwood, hawthorn, west coast, adelaide, geelong and carlton sat down one saturday arvo and said we just dont feel like it today theres sfa the afl could do.
short of getting liz lukin to say something mean about them.
As much as I love the sentiment. I think you will find the AFL own each club's licence and we wouldn't be able to play as Essendon in any other competition.theoretically if essendon, collingwood, hawthorn, west coast, adelaide, geelong and carlton sat down one saturday arvo and said we just dont feel like it today theres sfa the afl could do.
short of getting liz lukin to say something mean about them.
That's what I figured.As much as I love the sentiment. I think you will find the AFL own each club's licence and we wouldn't be able to play as Essendon in any other competition.theoretically if essendon, collingwood, hawthorn, west coast, adelaide, geelong and carlton sat down one saturday arvo and said we just dont feel like it today theres sfa the afl could do.
short of getting liz lukin to say something mean about them.
In 1993 the AFL Commission assumed national governance of the sport following the earlier disbanding of the Australian National Football Council. At the same time, control of the AFL passed from the AFL Board of Directors (effectively the 18 AFL clubs) to the Commission, with the abolition of the Board of Directors and adoption of new Memorandum and Articles of Association for the AFL. This was a significant change of power as previously the Commission required explicit approval by the League (teams) for major items, such as further Expansion, Mergers, Relocations, Major Capital Works and similar items.
Commissioners are elected by the 18 AFL clubs, who each are entitled to make nominations. Should an election be necessary, then the membership is decided by a vote of the AFL clubs. Under the current constitution, member clubs have the power to veto commission decisions only with over 75% of votes.
The Commission owns a stake in the Gold Coast and Greater Western Sydney clubs.
In 2006, the Commission approved a $2.1 million special financial assistance package for the Carlton Football Club.
In response to clubs increasingly relying on and applying for special funding in 2008, the Commission recommended removing the fund altogether. However after considerable club protests led by struggling clubs Western Bulldogs, Melbourne Football Club and North Melbourne, CEO Andrew Demetriou announced that the ASD would remain. In early 2009 it increased the Melbourne Football Club's assistance from $250,000 to A$1 million and later made a A$1 million grant to the Port Adelaide Football Club
So yeah, as you said Rolo, they could try the idea (and I like it), but over the last 8 years alone, 7 of the 18 clubs have had their hands out and subsequently filled by the AFL, so they're not going to upset the beast. Nor are they likely to try and help form the 75% needed to veto decisions, lest the handouts cease.
You could probably add Brisbane and St Kilda to the ones in bold - making 50% of the clubs needing or asking for AFL assistance.
Making a new comp with the half the league that has enough supporters to remain profitable seems like a decent idea…
As much as I love the sentiment. I think you will find the AFL own each club's licence and we wouldn't be able to play as Essendon in any other competition.theoretically if essendon, collingwood, hawthorn, west coast, adelaide, geelong and carlton sat down one saturday arvo and said we just dont feel like it today theres sfa the afl could do.
short of getting liz lukin to say something mean about them.
bombres?
As much as I love the sentiment. I think you will find the AFL own each club's licence and we wouldn't be able to play as Essendon in any other competition.theoretically if essendon, collingwood, hawthorn, west coast, adelaide, geelong and carlton sat down one saturday arvo and said we just dont feel like it today theres sfa the afl could do.
short of getting liz lukin to say something mean about them.
bombres?
Essington Bombres?
carringbush, carlscum, whorethorn, west coke, radelaide...
like to see if the afl have copyright
As much as I love the sentiment. I think you will find the AFL own each club's licence and we wouldn't be able to play as Essendon in any other competition.theoretically if essendon, collingwood, hawthorn, west coast, adelaide, geelong and carlton sat down one saturday arvo and said we just dont feel like it today theres sfa the afl could do.
short of getting liz lukin to say something mean about them.
Ahmm...that's club-based.
I'm talking player-based.
The AFL can't control a player movement. They can, conceivably, suspend/ban players, but a genuine Players' Union IS the game.
Stadiums are all wrapped up too.
If only it were an international game…
If there was ever a team called RADelaide I’d be tempted to switch.
Or fark Carlton would be a great name for a footy club.
But if Richmond are in, we’d need to make it a 9 team comp, top 8 of course.
Team logo:If there was ever a team called RADelaide I'd be tempted to switch.
As much as I love the sentiment. I think you will find the AFL own each club's licence and we wouldn't be able to play as Essendon in any other competition.theoretically if essendon, collingwood, hawthorn, west coast, adelaide, geelong and carlton sat down one saturday arvo and said we just dont feel like it today theres sfa the afl could do.
short of getting liz lukin to say something mean about them.
Ahmm...that's club-based.
I'm talking player-based.
The AFL can't control a player movement. They can, conceivably, suspend/ban players, but a genuine Players' Union IS the game.
Much as the AFL have been trying to keep this fact quiet during the ASADA mess, the players are contracted to the AFL as an organisation, as much as they are contracted to any individual club. Tripartite agreement, or whatever it's called.