View Full Version : Expansion 2 new franchises will mean relocation is no longer an option for weak Melbourne clubs
littleduck
11 Dec 2007, 09:49
Northern relolcation has been the worst case scenario in recent years for weak Melbourne based clubs. My view is that 16 teams is the ideal number of teams for the AFL. Accordingly, if 2 new teams are admitted because no weak club wants to voluntarily relocate north then the worst case scenario for weak Melbourne based clubs suddenly gets a whole lot worse. The worst case scenario is not a relocation to a promised land, but rather certain death and extinction. The AFL has been pumping its assistance money into weak Melbourne based clubs, but 2 new northern teams will mean all hands on deck to ensure their immediate and long-term success. Weak Melbourne clubs should be shaking in their boots today. With favourable draws and fixtures for the stronger clubs, the rich will get richer and the weak Melbourne clubs will get weaker. Weak Melbourne clubs are set to go backwards and there is nothing they can do about it, apart from blowing themself up and reincarnating as a new team with a different culture in a newfound northern landscape. However, by rejecting relocation at least they will go down with dignity in their own homes.
CatmanForever
11 Dec 2007, 10:24
well if the so called weaker Melbourne clubs wont relocate then the situation may arise for a merger if their financial survival is in doubt. Just like Fitzroy and the Brisbane Bears did merge to form the Brisbane Lions.
littleduck
11 Dec 2007, 10:51
well if the so called weaker Melbourne clubs wont relocate then the situation may arise for a merger if their financial survival is in doubt. Just like Fitzroy and the Brisbane Bears did merge to form the Brisbane Lions.
Arguably,
full relocation = death
merger = death
death = death
because
the club will no longer be all about what it has always been about - its traditional fans and former players and current players - the vibe of something special built over generations
it will necessarily involve significant cultural change right throughout the whole club and a fresh approach to marketing and management - the old vibe will be out and a new vibe created.
in summary, my view is that if you lose your old vibe, you lose your mojo = death.
i would rather live my life in my own skin among family and friends than have cosmetic and plastic surgery and live the high life in a far flung paradise - that will only mean becoming somebody else in my own skin - and so it is with football clubs who full relocate or merge - they become another person in their old skin.
The thing that puzzles me is why is the definition of a footy club so closely tied to the building they work in?
littleduck you were saying that clubs are about something special built over generations - why is that only existant in the one venue? Surely our clubs foundations are far more significant than bricks and mortar?
It is overemphasised because of a certain overexaggerrated sentimentality.
FRANCHISES?!?!?
Did I suddenly get transported to the States?
Hawkers
11 Dec 2007, 12:48
Arguably,
full relocation = death
merger = death
death = death
So regardless of whether they decide to move or stay they die?
Whats the point of this thread then?
Relocate and die or stay and die as you wrote.
I don't understand why you're telling us this
littleduck
11 Dec 2007, 16:13
The thing that puzzles me is why is the definition of a footy club so closely tied to the building they work in?
littleduck you were saying that clubs are about something special built over generations - why is that only existant in the one venue? Surely our clubs foundations are far more significant than bricks and mortar?
It is overemphasised because of a certain overexaggerrated sentimentality.
NoNoNo I didnt refer to a block of dirt with a building on it - I referred to the traditional fans, the current and former players, and perhaps the management and longtime sponsors.
The "vibe" includes the heart and soul of a club but that does not including a physical building as such.
My argument is that a "radical new vibe" for a club = death
because it bares minimal or no resemblance to the old heart and soul of the club ("the old vibe").
littleduck
11 Dec 2007, 16:16
So regardless of whether they decide to move or stay they die?
Whats the point of this thread then?
Relocate and die or stay and die as you wrote.
I don't understand why you're telling us thisI'm pointing this out because the better decision in my view is to SAY NO to full relocation and a "new vibe" and SAY YES to retaining "the old vibe" for as long as possible even if it means eventual death.... because if you work hard and pay your bills and get some decents crowds and kick a few more goals than your opponents, then you might hangd around and be part of the AFL circus for plenty more years to come. However, the cyclical nature of success means a club eventually has a downturn and that may ultimately end in death for weaker Melbourne clubs.
Does it really matter if you get buried, cremated, frozen or mummified? Dead is dead.
You can try and live or you can die, how you die is irrelevant.
littleduck
11 Dec 2007, 16:39
Does it really matter if you get buried, cremated, frozen or mummified? Dead is dead.
You can try and live or you can die, how you die is irrelevant.
I'd rather die in my own home in familiar surroundings than a nursing home 2000km from home.
There is still the very real scenario that the new licenses will fold if they can't become viable after a period of time or might be the inferior party to a merger if they are weak and have poor support.
AFL will do their best to prop them up but if it gets ridiculous they wouldn't be able to dump ridiculous sums of money into the new clubs.
NoNoNo I didnt refer to a block of dirt with a building on it - I referred to the traditional fans, the current and former players, and perhaps the management and longtime sponsors.
The "vibe" includes the heart and soul of a club but that does not including a physical building as such.
My argument is that a "radical new vibe" for a club = death
because it bares minimal or no resemblance to the old heart and soul of the club ("the old vibe").
Point taken, but still.. there's no reason why you can't transfer the majority of that feeling IMO.
Unless you were to completely restaff it with the intention of completely terraforming the club's landscape, i don't see why a team couldn't keep most of it's soul intact.
My point still stands though - some people are way too touchy about even moving it's home ground to better digs, in the same city..
Hawkers
11 Dec 2007, 18:01
I'm pointing this out because the better decision in my view is to SAY NO to full relocation and a "new vibe" and SAY YES to retaining "the old vibe" for as long as possible even if it means eventual death.... because if you work hard and pay your bills and get some decents crowds and kick a few more goals than your opponents, then you might hangd around and be part of the AFL circus for plenty more years to come. However, the cyclical nature of success means a club eventually has a downturn and that may ultimately end in death for weaker Melbourne clubs.
Agreed (though not the 'death of weaker Melbourne clubs' part)
Pessimistic
11 Dec 2007, 21:48
Northern relolcation has been the worst case scenario in recent years for weak Melbourne based clubs. My view is that 16 teams is the ideal number of teams for the AFL. Accordingly, if 2 new teams are admitted because no weak club wants to voluntarily relocate north then the worst case scenario for weak Melbourne based clubs suddenly gets a whole lot worse. The worst case scenario is not a relocation to a promised land, but rather certain death and extinction. The AFL has been pumping its assistance money into weak Melbourne based clubs, but 2 new northern teams will mean all hands on deck to ensure their immediate and long-term success. Weak Melbourne clubs should be shaking in their boots today. With favourable draws and fixtures for the stronger clubs, the rich will get richer and the weak Melbourne clubs will get weaker. Weak Melbourne clubs are set to go backwards and there is nothing they can do about it, apart from blowing themself up and reincarnating as a new team with a different culture in a newfound northern landscape. However, by rejecting relocation at least they will go down with dignity in their own homes.
Perhaps one day the sport will be enlightened enough to fix this. In some ways AFL is one of the most corrupt sporting competitions in the world. If that gets out of hand, fans will switch off.
In the meantime the clubs you speak of can cultivate tassue, canberra, NT etc.
Melbourne itself is becoming one of the fastest growing regions in australia too, so the 'melobourne cant support ten teams' daleks might have to move on from the eighties
The thing that puzzles me is why is the definition of a footy club so closely tied to the building they work in?
littleduck you were saying that clubs are about something special built over generations - why is that only existant in the one venue? Surely our clubs foundations are far more significant than bricks and mortar?
It is overemphasised because of a certain overexaggerrated sentimentality.
Well said :thumbsu:
Relocating doesnt neccessarily equate with death, whereas IMO Merger = Death
littleduck
12 Dec 2007, 10:41
Point taken, but still.. there's no reason why you can't transfer the majority of that feeling IMO. I dont think it is transferable 2500km from home, Melbourne to Gold Coast - far too different.
Unless you were to completely restaff it with the intention of completely terraforming the club's landscape, i don't see why a team couldn't keep most of it's soul intact. Well for a Gold Coast based club to be a success (whether a new start-up or relocation or merger) you will need to create a new local culture to attract new local fans (your future heart and soul) and new local management. This all adds up to a "radical new vibe".
My point still stands though - some people are way too touchy about even moving it's home ground to better digs, in the same city.. Maybe, but such a home ground relocation within your home city is not ripping the heart out of the "old vibe" and re-creating a "new vibe". It's the same "old vibe" marching forwards in a professional era.
littleduck
12 Dec 2007, 10:47
Well said :thumbsu:
Relocating doesnt neccessarily equate with death, whereas IMO Merger = DeathRelocation which = "new vibe" = death of "old vibe" = death
DOCKER CLINT
12 Dec 2007, 12:52
full relocation = death
Hardly. How many times did we hear about "The Bloods" when Sydney won the premiership for the first time in 70 odd years. Ask the old Souths supporters who they follow..
North have missed a golden opportunity.
Relocation which = "new vibe" = death of "old vibe" = death
Why does relocation = "new vibe"? in my understanding relocation= "new location" which might (not in my view definitely) require a "changed vibe" and now whereas a "changed vibe" isnt the original "vibe", it doesnt neccessarily require the death of the "old vibe" rather than a change.
If you think the "vibe" of clubs hasnt changed in the past even with unchanged training/home grounds etc I think you are deluded.
BTW any particular reason we are placing "vibe" in quotation marks? Its just that snazzy a word? or the fact its so vague it wouldnt mean anything if it wasn't contained?
littleduck
12 Dec 2007, 15:40
Hardly. How many times did we hear about "The Bloods" when Sydney won the premiership for the first time in 70 odd years. Ask the old Souths supporters who they follow.. The Swans are a club of mostly Sydneysiders (at least increasingly) run for Sydneysides by Sydnersiders. The "old vibe" of South Melbourne is no longer at the forefront. The club has changed. South Melbourne lost its mojo, therefore it no longer exists.
North have missed a golden opportunity.Arguable.
littleduck
12 Dec 2007, 15:45
Good post. Here goes.
Why does relocation = "new vibe"? Because to succeed in a far flung newfoundland requires new local players, new local fans and a new local administration.
in my understanding relocation= "new location" which might (not in my view definitely) require a "changed vibe" and now whereas a "changed vibe" isnt the original "vibe", it doesnt neccessarily require the death of the "old vibe" rather than a change. I would argue that a full relocation to such a far flung newfoundland 2000km away is such that a radical change away from the old vibe to a new vibe = effectively a new club culture and a new mojo.
If you think the "vibe" of clubs hasnt changed in the past even with unchanged training/home grounds etc I think you are deluded. I didnt say they hadn't. "vibes" that 'change' in response to the demand of the professional era are 'good' vibes because your heart and soul remains where it has always been - with your current fans, your current and former players, and current administration.
BTW any particular reason we are placing "vibe" in quotation marks? Its just that snazzy a word? or the fact its so vague it wouldnt mean anything if it wasn't contained? this whole argument is all about "vibes" and "mojos".
lose both = death
Good post. Here goes.
Because to succeed in a far flung newfoundland requires new local players, new local fans and a new local administration.
I would argue that a full relocation to such a far flung newfoundland 2000km away is such that a radical change away from the old vibe to a new vibe = effectively a new club culture and a new mojo.
I didnt say they hadn't. "vibes" that 'change' in response to the demand of the professional era are 'good' vibes because your heart and soul remains where it has always been - with your current fans, your current and former players, and current administration.
this whole argument is all about "vibes" and "mojos".
lose both = death
Cant multi quote and have been to lazy to figure it out so here goes.
Well I'd have to agree that some local players would no doubt be required, and obviously there would (hopefully) be new fans as the whole relocation thing is pretty pointless if that didn't occur and the administation would have to change to some degree.
Administrations change all the time though, a different board will therefore obviously have a new feel but to me it seems that you are predicating your argument on all these things destroying the relocated clubs identity (<sigh> sub "vibe" if you wish ;)), whereas to me I see that as only changes and not necessarily to its detriment.
As to it being such a large move that it is effectively a new club culture I agree that it could be so (one reason why I applauded the Roos was the AFL's wish to pretty much subsume them to effect the move), but only if it was a complete change of admin and club stalwarts etc.
If it was what I would consider a valid relocation the club would be a partner in the change and have a say in the particulars...after all if they have agreed to the change surely they are going to do their best to thrive or yet again we have it as a pointless move which would be better served by the creation of a completely new club instead. (sorry refuse to even contemplate using "Mojo" :p).
Well for me I can only remember Moorabin as they have/had been there my whole life, but when we stopped playing there (loved those localised rainstorms it used to get before a game at times :D) I understood it and agreed with the logic of it....would I have preferred it to remain static and unchanged forever? Well yes after all few people like change in the things they love, but change is a pretty large factor in every life be it an individual or a corporation. To stand still is to be left behind.
To me St Kilda is the same organic whole it has always been, some bits of the organism have grown and prospered and others have been trimmed before they could stagnate.
Basically as long as they dont change the name for some crappy marketing reason, maintain the pride in our history (I know you blues, pies and the rest who seem to think its a put down: spoons galor, bah you will never match our record there :cool:) and the members some control of the club then it IS the Saints regardless of where we are.
Pretty happy with most of the changes since we went from VFL to the AFL....yes there has been history and traditions either modified, ignored or even destroyed but its been a pretty good kick in the ass for my club as a whole and the majority of the changes I have been willing to tolerate for the benefits gained. Would I be saying "go it alone and F U" if we got in trouble and the AFL tried to ramrod us? Well probably but if they did it with some sensitivity and without the sense of urgency and overbearing tactics employed recently I would hope that I would consider all the ramifications before making my mind up.
Its not the location, admins or even players that make St Kilda for me (though they are undoubtably important aspects of the whole) but the spirit and the name (dont you ever change the freaking name boys).
AlecDuncan
12 Dec 2007, 22:03
That's what worries me. If you knock back the South Melbourne solution, you might just get the Fitzroy solution. I just wish the AFL hadn't been so bloody-minded and given the Roos another 12 months to make or break, and chew over the move in the meantime. But then, when isn't the AFL bloody-minded?
DarwinRoo
13 Dec 2007, 00:55
Well said :thumbsu:
Relocating doesnt neccessarily equate with death, whereas IMO Merger = Death
I beg to differ.
Would the AFL owned Southport Saints or Gold Coast Saints be the same as the present day St Kilda Saints?
I beg to differ.
Would the AFL owned Southport Saints or Gold Coast Saints be the same as the present day St Kilda Saints?
how are we differing? I said the name was sacrosanct.
I wouldnt follow the Southport or GC Saints, I follow St Kilda as long as they keep the name I dont care where they are, its like if for some stupid marketting reason they decided to play under the "Saints" rather than St Kilda I would probably stop going to the games and hope that someone would come along and change it back :rolleyes:
Mervyn Beasley
13 Dec 2007, 08:31
Northern relolcation has been the worst case scenario in recent years for weak Melbourne based clubs. My view is that 16 teams is the ideal number of teams for the AFL. Accordingly, if 2 new teams are admitted because no weak club wants to voluntarily relocate north then the worst case scenario for weak Melbourne based clubs suddenly gets a whole lot worse. The worst case scenario is not a relocation to a promised land, but rather certain death and extinction. The AFL has been pumping its assistance money into weak Melbourne based clubs, but 2 new northern teams will mean all hands on deck to ensure their immediate and long-term success. Weak Melbourne clubs should be shaking in their boots today. With favourable draws and fixtures for the stronger clubs, the rich will get richer and the weak Melbourne clubs will get weaker. Weak Melbourne clubs are set to go backwards and there is nothing they can do about it, apart from blowing themself up and reincarnating as a new team with a different culture in a newfound northern landscape. However, by rejecting relocation at least they will go down with dignity in their own homes.
The only ideal number is one that allows each team to play the other twice, thus creating a real competition that can be judged fairly and leave no excuses for any team.
Franchises ? Plz spare us the embarassing seppoisms.
littleduck
13 Dec 2007, 09:03
The only ideal number is one that allows each team to play the other twice, thus creating a real competition that can be judged fairly and leave no excuses for any team.
The modern business world and the modern professional sporting world are now inextricably linked. It's not about fairness and equity in the draw or necessarily about who wins and loses. It's about the competition as a whole being financially sustainable .
I believe 16 is the number because the AFL are flush with funds in recent years and the mix is just about right in terms of aggresive grassroots northern expansion and funding all other areas of the game.
Nobody is missing out!
However, to increase the 16-team comp mean re-jigging the carve-up of money and areas suddenly find themselves with a decrease in their budget which flows down the line.
littleduck
13 Dec 2007, 09:04
how are we differing? I said the name was sacrosanct.
I wouldnt follow the Southport or GC Saints, I follow St Kilda as long as they keep the name I dont care where they are, its like if for some stupid marketting reason they decided to play under the "Saints" rather than St Kilda I would probably stop going to the games and hope that someone would come along and change it back :rolleyes:
I repeat and rely on my Middle East Bombers analogy.
McCrann
13 Dec 2007, 10:06
The modern business world and the modern professional sporting world are now inextricably linked. It's not about fairness and equity in the draw or necessarily about who wins and loses. It's about the competition as a whole being financially sustainable .
I believe 16 is the number because the AFL are flush with funds in recent years and the mix is just about right in terms of aggresive grassroots northern expansion and funding all other areas of the game.
Nobody is missing out!
However, to increase the 16-team comp mean re-jigging the carve-up of money and areas suddenly find themselves with a decrease in their budget which flows down the line.
So, in your mind - to expand the game properly around the nation - and have a truly national competition - the AFL needs to merge or relocate Melbourne clubs?
Seems to have been a popular formula thus far hasn't it!
New clubs are the answer - on top of the existing clubs.