Expansion If the AFL expanded, where would the next team/s be?
- Thread starter Fizzler
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Jun 18, 2010
- 4,085
- 5,487
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- FFC Quay Club
The situation is well and truly broken. Overwhelming majority of WA kids have never been to a single game by the time they finish high school. WCE waiting list has passed 8 years and is climbing. New stadium barely scratches the surface. Only 15k extra seats. Will knock out less than half WCE waiting list. Prices will remain extortionate.
Adult followership is based on childhood attendance. This situation is bad for the future of the game.
Just for illustration, what if Victorian footy had this scenario:
4 teams based in Melbourne
2 home games a weekend
No MCG - both home games played at etihad
therefore 110,000 seats a week at the footy.
Sound ok? Because that is almost exactly the access ratio per population that applies in WA currently.2 home games a weekend
No MCG - both home games played at etihad
therefore 110,000 seats a week at the footy.
Dont bother with the facts. As long as WA is a net contributor to the AFL in terms of tv rights & player recruits to 'other' clubs, then thats all that matters. As if they care about the WA public, or the real health of the game in WA. Certainly some posters on BF dont.
- Moderator
- #179
Dont try and speak for me. I care greatly about the health of the game. I dont think having an AFL team full time in Tasmania has anything to do with it.
There are teams in sports all over the world whose supporting population doesnt suffer from having a substantial wait lists. When I say its not broken Im talking about many things only a small part is to do with the waiting list. A new team wont solve that any more than bringing in Freo has solved it.
Last year West Coast had a waiting list of 8,000. This year the membership figure of 60,000 includes people paying to be on the waiting list. It seems to me that a stadium with a 70,000 capacity can accommodate that.
I make a point when people speak 'for' me but that seems to matter not.
I was making an obvious point of the imbalance. Its as clear as glass as to why. Keeping the historic links of AFL/VFL seems to be the prime directive. Why else is such a blatantly inefficient & lopsided competition allowed to fester? The AFL started to show some balls to address the situation 20 years ago. The politics of the VFL lobby has obviously prevailed since then.
- Jun 18, 2010
- 4,085
- 5,487
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- FFC Quay Club
I think it is difficult to support the idea of Perth having only 2 teams and Victoria having more than 5 or 6.
- Moderator
- #182
Its been nearly 30 years siunce the league voted for expansion. People really should be used to the idea that the league originated in the VFL and is based on the 12 clubs that were in it at the time. At some point you have to be real, the ten clubs left are there, and not going anywhere so long as overall they make money for the league. So when expansion is talked about it should be on its own merits and not conditional on anything in victoria.
The reality is the league won't hand another license to the WAFL, and theres a very very low chance the league will compete with the WAFL owned teams as well. Ezisting lclubs arent going anywhere for the foreseeable future unless the league has a drastic change of policy or financial fortune - and theres no sign of that happening.
- Moderator
- #183
the AFL had no choice 20 years ago. The league was on debt and didnt always make a profit or barely did. Thats not the case now- hasnt been since the sale of Waverly - and Victoria is the biggest part of why thats the case - whether its crowds, afl members, club members, sponsorship, tv money, radio money, licensing etc. Until thats no longer the case, Id suggest nobody is really "allowed to fester". Not every club can be big, and not every club is going to be profitable - especially not when the league manipulates the draw, and tv broadcasts times, to artificially keep it that way.
telsor
Hall of Famer
I keep trying to suggest more teams in WA and get told there is no market for them...
but then, I'm supposedly just a parochial Vic with no thought for the game beyond the state borders.
telsor
Hall of Famer
and if the AFL had removed Vic clubs, Tasmania wouldn't even be a possibility of having a team.
If Vic had, say, 6 clubs, you'd need a Tas club to have the financial strength of the 6th biggest Vic club (which would be bigger than the 6th biggest now due to some supporters of the defunct clubs crossing over) to even be considered. Considering you matching up with the 10th is a maybe, that would clearly be impossible.
The best hope for a Tas club is 10 Vic clubs and further expansion from the current base....but feel free to let your anti-Vic hatred shoot yourself in the foot.
I want 22 teams so we finally have a fair draw. Wtf was that.
Fre
Syd
NM
Haw
Ade
WCE
Bri
Rich
Mel
WB
-------
Gee
Car
Syd x2
Col
Ade x2
Ess
StK
WB x2
GWS
Haw x2
GC
Fre x2
Fre
Syd
NM
Haw
Ade
WCE
Bri
Rich
Mel
WB
-------
Gee
Car
Syd x2
Col
Ade x2
Ess
StK
WB x2
GWS
Haw x2
GC
Fre x2
telsor
Hall of Famer
If you want to play all teams once, you need 23 teams for 22 matches (you can't play yourself after all) play them over 23 weeks with 1 team having a bye each week.
Over the next ~20 years, add WA3, WA4, SA3, Tas and one more to be decided depending on growth (both population and popularity), although currently I'd lean towards WA5.
You have to have the split round bye in the middle as it would be unfair when a club has its bye. Unless with 23 teams we can have 2 byes?
As far as obvious choices go...
- WA3 is by far the most financially viable.
- TAS is yearning.
- ACT edges out WA4 simply because you have monopoly over the audience, despite being smaller.
- WA4 next strongest.
- Crystal ball
telsor
Hall of Famer
I wasn't doing an order for the new teams...That said, not sure Canberra is big enough (especially in terms of AFL support) to host a club of it's own...It would be roughly akin to Darwin...Nice idea, and a 'high income' potential range of fans, but I'm just not sure if there are enough of them. Both would be in the mix for the 5th team though (see how they look in 10-15 years time).
When the byes fall would be an issue, I'd set them up based on the previous years ladder though, so the top teams all get byes around the middle of the year (premier is rnd 12, 2nd rnd 13, 3rd rnd 11, etc), with the bottom teams coming in at the start/end. Sadly there is no such thing as a perfect fixture, so a team jumping up the ladder might 'get lucky'. Other option would be 22 teams, 2 byes and 21 matches over 23 weeks.
AFL should just make a Tasmanian and a WA3 team for 2018.
Chup chup.
Chup chup.
Tenders are being put out for the next phase of expansion over the next couple of months. I know at least one team already has this budgeted for, and can think of at least 3 others who probably have as well. http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/details-on-national-comp.927792/page-2#post-41435292
AFL House is working out the details of how it will all work now.
On past experience, this is going ahead now because GWS and Gold Coast are out of the establishment phase. So the new teams will mean no other expansion until this is out of the establishment phase.
AFL House is working out the details of how it will all work now.
On past experience, this is going ahead now because GWS and Gold Coast are out of the establishment phase. So the new teams will mean no other expansion until this is out of the establishment phase.
telsor
Hall of Famer
No.
This is going ahead because the AFL realises there is a lot more government interest and funding involved if they have a decent rate of female participation at all levels.
Womens soccer, Womens cricket...they're all getting 'top level' competitions pushed much more to the front now...it's not a coincidence, or a massive social upswell of interest in women's sport. It's the government saying "Build it and we will fund".
It isn't mutually exclusive. A women's league was being talked about by the AFL as long ago as 2010, with a date of 2020. While lack of depth in women's footy was a real issue, part of the reason for the delay was GWS and GC. They didn't want to try to do all at once.
Government push is a part of the reason for the pushing up of the schedule, along with the faster than expected growth in depth. If the only issue was government funding, it wouldn't be happening, the AFL doesn't need their coin enough to do something they do not want to just to get it.
It is a confluence of factors.
Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk
telsor
Hall of Famer
Well, it's got nothing to do with GC & GWS doing better than expected, because financially, they're still totally dependent on the AFL.
Interesting happenings in the halls of power of footys competitors aka the NRL & the A -League around possible future expansion & more teams is not the only alternative.
Is this relevant here Wookie, do your strongly held views on the subject allow it to be discussed?
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...565318095?sv=a5597adbb3bbd78858381fa72e1261c1
http://www.foxsports.com.au/footbal...off-field-metric/story-e6frf4gl-1227585368703
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/...eague-expansion-comments-20151030-gkn1op.html
Sure its what is going on around footy, & many see the mindless expansion of AFL teams as the only way - its not though.
Is this relevant here Wookie, do your strongly held views on the subject allow it to be discussed?
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...565318095?sv=a5597adbb3bbd78858381fa72e1261c1
http://www.foxsports.com.au/footbal...off-field-metric/story-e6frf4gl-1227585368703
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/...eague-expansion-comments-20151030-gkn1op.html
Sure its what is going on around footy, & many see the mindless expansion of AFL teams as the only way - its not though.
- Apr 12, 2012
- 46,261
- 42,101
- AFL Club
- GWS
Fine.
I can accept the eagles being booted. Hated the travel there anyway.
More general than giant.
No need to be defensive, one of our games strengths is the heavy lifting done in establishing both GWS & the Suns.
IMHO those who claim a right to exist based on the 20th century will be as relevant as the fourpeat in the VFL (Pies in the 1930s) when discussing the Hawks achievement in GF2015 to equal the Lions of 2004.
- Apr 12, 2012
- 46,261
- 42,101
- AFL Club
- GWS
Not defensive. I say that to any member who offers up someone elses club to be killed off.More general than giant.
No need to be defensive, one of our games strengths is the heavy lifting done in establishing both GWS & the Suns.
IMHO those who claim a right to exist based on the 20th century will be as relevant as the fourpeat in the VFL (Pies in the 1930s) when discussing the Hawks achievement in GF2015 to equal the Lions of 2004.
maybe you should consider the implications of that view.
I can accept Subi not playing at the highest level, its the difference that today brings.
I want a comp of the best, an elite comp.
- Apr 12, 2012
- 46,261
- 42,101
- AFL Club
- GWS
You do realise thats impossible.
You will always have teams that are at the bottom and crap.
Its a fools dream. One that rugby league has already tried and failed.
There isnt a competition in the world besides probably State Of origin or the Rugby Championship that is your elite comp.
1 has 2 teams in it the other 4.
Similar threads
- Poll
