Geoffrey Edelsten, the first person to privately own a major Australian sporting team, believes the global trend towards private ownership of sporting clubs, which is being welcomed in some areas of Australian sport, would not work in the AFL.
Edelsten says it is difficult to pinpoint the differences between the codes but he reached his conclusion by comparing his experiences as licence holder of the Sydney Swans in 1985 and 1986 with his observations of the Russell Crowe- and Peter Holmes a Court-owned South Sydney Rabbitohs and his expectations for the Newcastle Knights, recently taken over by Nathan Tinkler.
Private ownership in sport is gaining traction in Australia. Rugby league, football and, lately, rugby union have all mostly welcomed such investment, and cricket recently approved minority private ownership of its newly formed Twenty20 clubs.
However, the cashed-up AFL has resisted, even as some clubs continue to struggle financially, including Port Adelaide, who will require a bailout from the governing body after revealing this week the club was broke.
''One strong feeling I had from my time at the Swans was that AFL people don't feel the same attachment to a privately owned club,'' Edelsten told the The Sun-Herald. ''Members feel the club belongs to them. But when there is a private owner things change, and people have a different attachment to the club. I do believe there is a difference between the codes. Private ownership works well, for example, in the English Premier League, where members still feel part of the club and follow it fanatically. To a lesser degree, it's the same in rugby league, where members don't feel disenfranchised by private ownership. It seems to be different in AFL.
''The thing that struck me after we had the licence for the Swans was that the public didn't mind going to watch the games but they really didn't feel that they were owners of the club as members do in the normal [AFL] membership set up.''
Under Edelsten, the Swans, who had moved from South Melbourne three years earlier, often drew big crowds, and gained media and public prominence. However, behind the scenes, Edelsten found that allegiances were shifting.
''The thing that astonished me was that people who would do things for the club - and had done for years for nothing just because they wanted to be involved - as soon as there was a private owner, they wanted handouts. In 1986, that exceeded over $1 million of payments that hadn't been made in previous years.
''You shouldn't own a sporting club with the hope of making money. But you would hope that the investment is modest. Your return from the various activities should cover most of your costs and whatever you've budgeted to spend, be it $1 million or $5 million, should be the limit. But it isn't the case. You cannot foresee the amount of extra funds you've got to put in because people do things that help the club, and where they often didn't used to charge for it, they do when there is a private owner. It often costs much more than you anticipate unless you have the experience or someone has warned you.
''I certainly was taken aback by the amount of extra funding that was required, and what it said to me was that there was a vast difference in the way people feel between the different codes of football. I don't know where that difference comes from but, historically, the Brisbane experience [under owner Christopher Skase in the mid 1980s], wasn't terribly successful, and whilst we got record crowds to watch the Sydney Swans, membership stayed modest. Meanwhile, I don't think the Rabbitohs have suffered any less following [from fans], and I think Nathan will do very well as owner of the Knights.''
While Edelsten's experience could serve as a warning to potential private investors, he says he ''wouldn't dare'' advise Tinkler to be wary of unforeseen expenses as they would likely not bother him.
''He is the youngest billionaire in Australia, he has a knack of finding resources and is a very successful young man,'' he says. ''The thing is also, with someone of his wealth, it's not going to worry him very much. An extra half million or million dollars in costs isn't going to worry Nathan. He'll get a lot of pleasure out of owning a club. It's exciting, stimulating, and it's great to be involved with the players and everyone else around the club. Nathan will enjoy it. But I just don't think that model will work in AFL.''
AFL aside, Edelsten remains a proponent of private ownership. Whereas some clubs struggle to use their entire salary cap allowance because they lack funds, wealthy owners can ensure this is not a problem. Training facilities and the club could be improved, and through that, Edelsten says, a team's followers will feel they belong. Teams with that sort of strength behind them will likely do better on the field.''
Twitter: @davesygall
Email a friend