• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Relegation: good thing or bad thing?

Is relegation a good thing in sport?

  • Yes

    Votes: 18 85.7%

  • No

    Votes: 3 14.3%
  • Total voters
    21
  • Poll closed .
Jono

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Relegation for AFL debate was sparked this week by a couple of suggestions.

Shot down by most pundits, but its there. Thought I'd mention it.
 
BoyBrumby

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Jono said:
Relegation for AFL debate was sparked this week by a couple of suggestions.

Shot down by most pundits, but its there. Thought I'd mention it.
Click to expand...
Oh? How did they suggest it'd work? As I understand all the main Aussie Rules states have their own comps below AFL.

Interesting article on English football's player salaries as ratio of club's incomes in yesterday's Independent.

No fewer than 8 clubs in the top two flights pay over 100% of their total revenue on players' wages. Blackpool the worst offenders with 134% paid. Strikes a stark contrast with the (IIRC) 27% AFL players were campaigning for.
 
benchmark00

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
AFL one not worth mentioning. Not sure why Jono brought it up itbt.

Involved having two conferences. Top tier and bottom tier.
 
Furball

Furball

Evil Scotsman
BoyBrumby said:
Oh? How did they suggest it'd work? As I understand all the main Aussie Rules states have their own comps below AFL.

Interesting article on English football's player salaries as ratio of club's incomes in yesterday's Independent.

No fewer than 8 clubs in the top two flights pay over 100% of their total revenue on players' wages. Blackpool the worst offenders with 134% paid. Strikes a stark contrast with the (IIRC) 27% AFL players were campaigning for.
Click to expand...
That can't be correct.
 
Magrat Garlick

Magrat Garlick

Global Moderator
GingerFurball said:
That can't be correct.
Click to expand...
from the linky

However, buried in the report, 39 pages in, it is noted that Blackpool, paid significant promotion bonuses. Deduct the bonuses, which have been reported to be around £5m, and Blackpool’s wage-revenue ratio is 81 per cent.

So basically they paid bonuses with the money they would get for playing PL in 2010-11.
 
Furball

Furball

Evil Scotsman
Samuel_Vimes said:
from the linky

However, buried in the report, 39 pages in, it is noted that Blackpool, paid significant promotion bonuses. Deduct the bonuses, which have been reported to be around £5m, and Blackpool’s wage-revenue ratio is 81 per cent.

So basically they paid bonuses with the money they would get for playing PL in 2010-11.
Click to expand...
So a £5m drop sees wage ratio go from 134% to 81%?

Something still doesn't seem right with those sums, given every single side in the EPL gets about £35m in TV revenue.
 
Jono

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Jono said:
Coincidentally to this discussion we are having here, there has been an issue come up in the AFL today which is kind of relevant to this debate.

Collingwood are pretty much the richest AFL club. Their player salary spending is capped, however the spending of one's football departments (i.e. coaches, training facilities etc.) is not capped. Collingwood have traditionally spend a lot on their football department (much more than say North Melbourne have, which is Benchy's team and probably the poorest club in the AFL).

One of Collingwood's big expenditure projects has been flying their entire team to Arizona pre-season for training, as the high altitude improves player's stamina and endurance. They have a few injured players in their ranks and plan on sending these players to Arizona during the season to recover. We're talking go there for 5-6 days whilst they have a bye in the fixture. There are many clubs which would simply not be able to consider this as an option, and others who could do it but would have to sacrifice in another important area of their football department.

Tthis news only came out today but the rumour is the AFL is uncomfortable with this. For a while there has been talk of putting a cap on football department spending. I would not be surprised if this is the final straw for the AFL Commission.

Anyway food for thought.
Click to expand...
benchmark00 said:
Not sure how I feel about capping football department spending, but it's definitely one area where the richer clubs have a perceived advantage. Having said that NM have a fine young coach as it stands, and I don't know too many coaches in the league I'd swap him for at this stage. Think it is an area which clubs will try and exploit in the future though.
Click to expand...
Bit of a bump, in the end it turns out the AFL are not going to cap football department spending... but the AFL is doing its very best (with the clubs helping) to make sure the competition ensures that every fan has a genuine belief that the club they support has the ability to win a premiership in their lifetime.

Direct comments about ensuring the AFL does not become the EPL being made by captains of football clubs, and insinuated by the CEO and Chairman.

Saint wary of EPL-like competition
 
Last edited:
benchmark00

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I note that AD mentioned last night that they may look to cap the number of people allowed in the football department. Might be an avenue worth exploring. Would be hard to police though.
 
Jono

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Yeah was happy that the discussion came up regarding that. That being said, that doesn't prevent some teams being able to fly players to Arizona mid-season whilst others can't etc.

Its a tricky issue isn't it. Personally I am not 100% in favour of capping football department spending or numbers etc. as I think the innovation argument is strong.

At the same time, I cannot provide a solid alternative to ensure the game stays even. Particulalry if the fixture is always going to favour Collingwood, Essendon, Richmond etc. and screw over Bulldogs, Melbourne, North, Port etc.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top