12 team competition. 6 teams have to go, who would you boot?

[bombersfan4000]

Collingwood untouchable FYI
We keep the AFL afloat

So Eddie keeps telling you & your stupid enough to believe it!

 

[basashi]

The whole premise is faulty.

When the VFL had 12 sides, they were not attracting all the good talent from around the country. They were the best league, but they were not a single preeminent league.

For WA players about 3 of the best ten and about 7 or 8 of the best 50 went across to the VFL. Now you have how many WA players in the AFL? 100? Well over 100? In the old days, most of them stayed in the WAFL.

It was similar in the SANFL - although they were slightly more likely to travel.

The VFL made a transition from the "best league in the country with the most good players" to an AFL which is "the single pre eminent league in the country with (effectively) all the good players." This transition has brought the league more players of quality than the extra 6 teams require.

Simply, now if you are good enough for the AFL you will go. In the old days, the overwhelming majority of WA and SA players would were good enough for the VFL did not go. Each AFL club has 25 or so top flight ready players. The 450 (approx) listed "top flight ready" AFL players now would easily include the best 440 players in the nation. Generously, there may be a handful of Podsiadlys / Barlows etc running around in the lower leagues. The old VFL had league players from well outside this range - lower ranked players got VFL league games than are currently getting AFL league games.

By way of illustration consider this lineup of current AFL players with an East Freo club of origin:

FF Jason Johannisen Mitch Clark Alex Fasolo
HF Jamie Cripps Josh Kennedy Andrew Swallow
C Rhys Palmer David Swallow Elliot Yeo
HB Garrick Ibbotson Harry Taylor Brad Sheppard
FB Cale Hooker Luke McPharlin Marco Paparone
Foll Aaron Sandilands Patrick Ryder Chris Masten

Res Jonathon Griffin Max Duffy Jarrad Jansen
Patrick Cripps Jonathon Marsh Harry Marsh

If it was 1975 one or two of these guys would have left to join the VFL. The remainder would stay in the WAFL.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

God here we go again.

There could be a nuclear war tomorrow, and North will still be here.

Sheehan, senile old ****.

Ah, the good 'ole North Melbourne Cockroaches or La Cucarachas, lol

 

[basashi]

Mike Sheehan just talking now about it on #AFL360
Less equals more basically.
12 team comp, 22 rounds, each side plays everyone twice.
From the 18 clubs currently, which 6 would you boot?
I have booted out Suns, Giants, Bombers, North, Saints & Lions.

You shouldn't be allowed to boot any club that doesn't have pokies.

 

[Seedsfan]

So hypothetically

You kick out the minnows which you would probably want, Melbourne would be included in that lot.

What would the MCC say about that? You can beat that they'll take the MCG away from the AFLs hands and the AFL would have to use Etihad, which they will own in 9-10 years time anyway. Pies fans hate going to Etihad, not sure if Pies crowds would be that high themselves.

Lol the MCC needs the income from the AFL for the upkeep is the stadium. People bag Collingwood for not traveling but that is because the MCC demands we play 15 games there a season

 

[FootyJunkie]

Alternate History - Keeping it at 12

End of 1986
- Melbourne and Fitzroy merge to form the "Melbourne Lions"
- West Coast enter the VFL
- No Brisbane as the VFL are not keen on expanding north, still not sold on the Swans being viable in Sydney despite recent on field success

End of 1990
- Sydney finish rock bottom, Sydney experiment deemed a failure after 8 years, Swans leave the VFL for the VFA and move back to Lake Oval, South Melbourne, replacing Dandenong who fold 4 years earlier than they actually did
- Adelaide enter the VFL which is renamed the AFL shortly afterwards for the 1991 season, given that Australian Rules Football strongholds of SA and WA now have representation

End of 1994
- St.Kilda finish rock bottom, Saints leave the AFL for the VFA and move back to playing games at Moorabbin.
- Fremantle enter the AFL

End of 1996
- Footscray finish rock bottom, Bulldogs leave the AFL for the (new) VFL, but ensure future home games at Whitten Oval, retain the "Footscray" brand as Williamstown and Werribee agree to a merger to be named the "Western Seagulls" from 1997
- Port Adelaide enter the AFL

Tasmania
Both Hawthorn and North Melbourne build up strong secondary markets in Tasmania, in Launceston and Hobart respectively, ensuring their viability.

Adelaide
Carlton
Collingwood
Essendon
Fremantle
Geelong
Hawthorn
Melbourne Lions
North Melbourne
Port Adelaide
Richmond
West Coast

AFL and the NRL stay in their own territories, Melbourne Storm being the only exception (sports capital)

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Go back to 14 teams and have a 26 round h&a season plus finals. Restrict players to only playing 20 or 22 of the h&a. Keep the current top 8 finals format. Have larger lists and all clubs to have an aligned reserves team.

Merge Geelong and Footscray, 7 homes games a season at Kardinia and 6 at Etihad.

Give Gold Coast the chop or merge them with Brisbane and pick the best list from the 2. Gold Coast has been a graveyard for national sporting teams for decades.

Hawthorn to takeover St Kilda and then start working on levelling up that premiers / spooners ledger. It would start with 13 flags and 37 spoons, just to keep it interesting.

Merge Melbourne and North Melbourne.

or replace the Hawthorn takeover of St Kilda with GWS merging into Sydney.

 

[Marley10]

Melbourne could be merged, but I don't think they would ever boot them out as the oldest club and the original tennants of the MCG.

Merge them with Hawthorn to make the Melbourne Hawks.

Remove GWS, Gold Coast, St Kilda, North and Bulldogs.

The Hawks are still considerably smaller than Essendon for example in terms of following despite recent success and would be a mid range team if they dipped below again. So if hypothetically we want a 12 team competition, this is how I would see it. Can merge Melbourne with Carlton, Richmond or Essendon to make the Melbourne Blues/Bombers/Tigers as they all have a closer colour scheme to Melbourne than Hawthorn, but I think long term wise, each of those can survive a dip in form better than Hawthorn can.

That leaves:

2 WA
2 SA
1 NSW
1 QLD
6 VIC - 5 Melbourne clubs.

I think merging two smaller clubs won't necessarily be effective as you'd have to account for the loss of supporters on each side. Not every fan will embrace the merger

 

[RUNVS]

It would have to be from Melbourne.

Collingwood
Richmond
Carlton
Hawthorn


are clearly safe and so is Geelong.

North Melbourne
Melbourne
Western Bulldogs
St Kilda

are the 4 obvious choices but I can't think of who else to drop.

I like the idea of a 14 team competition though

Victoria - 6 teams
WA - 2 teams
SA - 2 teams
QLD - 2 teams
NSW - 2 teams

For me that is a good mix.

 

[madmug]

It would have to be from Melbourne.

Collingwood
Richmond
Carlton
Hawthorn


are clearly safe and so is Geelong.

North Melbourne
Melbourne
Western Bulldogs
St Kilda

are the 4 obvious choices but I can't think of who else to drop.

I like the idea of a 14 team competition though

Victoria - 6 teams
WA - 2 teams
SA - 2 teams
QLD - 2 teams
NSW - 2 teams

For me that is a good mix.

So a city with 2million get 2 teams, a city with 4.3million get 5 teams, a state with 500k get nothing but a city with 180k gets a team? How?

 

[telsor]

If Vic was cut back severely, I think Geelong would need to go.

In theory at least, there would be high hopes for most fans of the defunct clubs to move across the to remaining clubs, but very few would start supporting a club in another city, so while the remaining Melbourne clubs all grow, Geelong would remain largely 'as is', taking them from a 'medium sized' club now to being the smallest by a fair way.

 

[telsor]

So a city with 2million get 2 teams, a city with 4.3million get 5 teams, a state with 500k get nothing but a city with 180k gets a team? How?

Spot the odd one out...

 

[telsor]

I like the idea of a 14 team competition though

Victoria - 6 teams
WA - 2 teams
SA - 2 teams
QLD - 2 teams
NSW - 2 teams

For me that is a good mix.

NSW & QLD can't support their teams as is, and fewer teams would set the bar even higher. 1 club each would be more than enough for the rest to subsidise.

 

[flamethrower]

Fairest way would be to scrap all 18 current teams and create 12 new teams.

4 in Victoria, 2 in WA, 2 in SA, 1 in Brisbane, 1 on Gold Coast, 1 in Sydney and 1 in Tasmania.

 

[#1_pigeonracer]

Recall South Melbourne and Fitzroy, send WC, F, A, PA, GWS and GC back to their state leagues.

 

[CrazyKenny]

i think Melbourne should be booted out because they are not a very good team and probably never will be and they are poor and they have not very members so I think that they should be the first to go

 

[Hawkk]

Melbourne could be merged, but I don't think they would ever boot them out as the oldest club and the original tennants of the MCG.

Merge them with Hawthorn to make the Melbourne Hawks.

Remove GWS, Gold Coast, St Kilda, North and Bulldogs.

The Hawks are still considerably smaller than Essendon for example in terms of following despite recent success and would be a mid range team if they dipped below again. So if hypothetically we want a 12 team competition, this is how I would see it. Can merge Melbourne with Carlton, Richmond or Essendon to make the Melbourne Blues/Bombers/Tigers as they all have a closer colour scheme to Melbourne than Hawthorn, but I think long term wise, each of those can survive a dip in form better than Hawthorn can.

That leaves:

2 WA
2 SA
1 NSW
1 QLD
6 VIC - 5 Melbourne clubs.

I think merging two smaller clubs won't necessarily be effective as you'd have to account for the loss of supporters on each side. Not every fan will embrace the merger

Hawthorn haven't posted a financial loss since 1996.

We're a middle range club that will struggle to survive with 73000 members, the 2nd biggest revenue in the league, a new land parcel in suburban Melbourne and ownership over the stand at Waverley Park.

 

[Marley10]

Hawthorn haven't posted a financial loss since 1996.

We're a middle range club that will struggle to survive with 73000 members, the 2nd biggest revenue in the league, a new land parcel in suburban Melbourne and ownership over the stand at Waverley Park.

That comes with recent success. If Hawthorn dips, I'm not sure they can sustain that. Every single club will dip with lean years like Essendon, Carlton and Richmond have.

Despite having no success, Richmond is probably on par with Hawthorn. If they have the success Hawthorn are having, they'd easily overtake Hawthorn. I just don't think Hawthorn have that big of a following, especially with casual support, compared to the others.

Hawthorn have definitely done well, but they'd need another decade of success and a strong rivalry with other Melbourne teams (especially the big clubs) to really build up a generation of followers capable of overtaking Carlton (the more likely club to drop off). I mention a strong Melbourne rivalry since if Sydney or Geelong's recent rivalry was with Essendon instead, that probably would have garnered more interest, even when Essendon or Hawthorn go down the ladder due to the history between the two clubs. Then you'd see the real tribalism sort of mentality present between some of the other Victorian clubs.

Thing is, the rivalry with other "big 4" clubs is what honestly keeps teams like Carlton and Richmond in their lean years a float. That's what Hawthorn don't really have, which they would somehow need to build if they are to pull big crowds when down on form.

Hawthorn are probably in full flight at the moment, having reached their peek support (at present) and growing, whereas the other clubs have a large proportion of dormant fans. A good Hawthorn will not be bigger than a good Carlton for example.

In a nutshell, this is all hypothetical and based on lean years, not successful years.

 

[Hawkk]

That comes with recent success. If Hawthorn dips, I'm not sure they can sustain that. Every single club will dip with lean years like Essendon, Carlton and Richmond have.

Well like I said they've turned successive profits since 1996 (the only Victorian club to do this) so...

Despite having no success, Richmond is probably on par with Hawthorn. If they have the success Hawthorn are having, they'd easily overtake Hawthorn. I just don't think Hawthorn have that big of a following, especially with casual support, compared to the others.

Hawthorn have definitely done well, but they'd need another decade of success and a strong rivalry with other Melbourne teams (especially the big clubs) to really build up a generation of followers capable of overtaking Carlton (the more likely club to drop off). I mention a strong Melbourne rivalry since if Sydney or Geelong's recent rivalry was with Essendon instead, that probably would have garnered more interest, even when Essendon or Hawthorn go down the ladder due to the history between the two clubs. Then you'd see the real tribalism sort of mentality present between some of the other Victorian clubs.

Perhaps, obviously a man who has done his research. That said not many Victorian clubs have drawn 50,000 plus to home games against non Victorian clubs. Hawthorn has 'only' done it 5 times (50,023 v Eagles, 54,785 v Swans, 63,319 v Swans, 72,130 v Swans, 72,760 v Swans)...albeit helped along the way by playing 2 GF's against the Swans, nonetheless not bad for a club that supposedly doesnt have an overly big fan base.

The only clubs to achieve this feet are Collingwood (11), Hawthorn (5), Essendon (4), Melbourne (1) and St Kilda (1).

Thing is, the rivalry with other "big 4" clubs is what honestly keeps teams like Carlton and Richmond in their lean years a float. That's what Hawthorn don't really have, which they would somehow need to build if they are to pull big crowds when down on form.

Well given Hawthorn has made successive profits since 1996, has major interests in non football related revenues, major land interests (at Waverley Park, Caroline Springs and now Dingley) as well as a sizable investment in Tasmania quite clearly Hawthorn has a far stronger business model than Richmond and Carlton...which is basically why they are a much stronger organisation than either Richmond and Carlton (and are therefore along with Collingwood subject to the highest revenue tax)

I find it ironic that Richmond, Carlton and Essendon are all complaining because Hawthorn and Collingwood are not getting taxed enough

Hawthorn are probably in full flight at the moment, having reached their peek support (at present) and growing, whereas the other clubs have a large proportion of dormant fans. A good Hawthorn will not be bigger than a good Carlton for example.

In a nutshell, this is all hypothetical and based on lean years, not successful years.

Awesome but as above that has absolutely nothing to do with the durability of the club to survive the good times and the bad.

Like I said a middle of the range club that will struggle to survive albeit a revenue base that is $67.63m (Carlton $63.3m, Richmond $44.4m) and net assets that are $31.69m (Richmond $23.71m, Carlton $13.23m)

 

[Marley10]

Well like I said they've turned successive profits since 1996 (the only Victorian club to do this) so...



Perhaps, obviously a man who has done his research. That said not many Victorian clubs have drawn 50,000 plus to home games against non Victorian clubs. Hawthorn has 'only' done it 5 times (50,023 v Eagles, 54,785 v Swans, 63,319 v Swans, 72,130 v Swans, 72,760 v Swans)...albeit helped along the way by playing 2 GF's against the Swans, nonetheless not bad for a club that supposedly doesnt have an overly big fan base.

The only clubs to achieve this feet are Collingwood (11), Hawthorn (5), Essendon (4), Melbourne (1) and St Kilda (1).



Well given Hawthorn has made successive profits since 1996, has major interests in non football related revenues, major land interests (at Waverley Park, Caroline Springs and now Dingley) as well as a sizable investment in Tasmania quite clearly Hawthorn has a far stronger business model than Richmond and Carlton...which is basically why they are a much stronger organisation than either Richmond and Carlton (and are therefore along with Collingwood subject to the highest revenue tax)

I find it ironic that Richmond, Carlton and Essendon are all complaining because Hawthorn and Collingwood are not getting taxed enough



Awesome but as above that has absolutely nothing to do with the durability of the club to survive the good times and the bad.

Like I said a middle of the range club that will struggle to survive albeit a revenue base that is $67.63m (Carlton $63.3m, Richmond $44.4m) and net assets that are $31.69m (Richmond $23.71m, Carlton $13.23m)

This is all hypothetical. I wouldn't compare the current Carlton and Richmond as they've had very lean years.

Didn't Hawthorn nearly get merged with Melbourne despite the profits? Obviously Hawthorn now aren't the same as then. No reason why they (Carlton and Richmond ) can't become a powerhouse once they sort out on and off field issues. You as a Hawthorn supporter would know how quick things can change.

Hawthorn are in a good financial position at the moment, but it remains to be seen whether they can sustain that with a drop off in memberships, attendances, merchandise sales, prime time television and overall gloss that comes with success. They won't struggle financially because of said investments (like Essendon, who aren't struggling financially despite the last few years), but I'm not sure if they could maintain their mantra as a big and powerful club.

Yes Hawthorn have drawn well in the past against the interstate sides, but for some reason, they don't draw that well against Melbourne teams. They won't draw well vs interstate sides when they go down the ladder, but don't have that big Victorian draw cards like Richmond and Carlton do to help them.

For example, Carlton have had crowds of 80K+ and 70K+ in a year that they are contending for the spoon. Don't think Hawthorn would have that as they lack rivalries with other Melbourne teams. Interstate rivalries are never really as strong as local rivalries. Essendon is the obvious choice, but they are too crap to contend. The seeds are there as Essendon fans will always resent Hawthorn and vice versa.

Just think there are a few things that needs to happen before Hawthorn can be considered as a big club. It can happen within the next decade as they grow their next generation of support with continued success and continued failure of other former powerhouses.

 

[madmug]

A 12 team national comp was/is never going to happen, least wise because the TV rights wants more than 6 games a week. The other , biggest, reason is the glut of VFL clubs who enjoy the gravy train. Expansion via new clubs was a result of the VFL block. Its a millstone around the AFLs neck & limits any push to be a balanced national competition. Perhaps if more clubs had done the Sydney thing & relocated, we'd have less actual teams, if thats whats wanted.

 

[HBFlanker]

Dont need any of this crap.

Keep it at 18 teams.

Have a 17 round season. At this point of the year currently we have about 8 teams that are absolutely icing the click for one of two reasons.

1. They are entrenched in the top 4
2. They are entrenched in the bottom 4

Its a joke, every year in August the footy is terrible. 26k to a Hawthorn vs Carlton match is a disgrace, and i dont blame their supporters, why woudl you rock up?

Play 17 games a year over the 22 rounds. take a leaf out of the NFL in the states, considering how much we are trying to copy them already. Each team plays 3 out of 4 weekends. There doesn't have to be 9 games a weekend, although the TV networks will need convincing.

The team you play at home one year, you play away the next. Its the only way to keep things even.

 

[SJ]

Sheahan has completely lost the plot.

Not only is he creating a solution to problems that don't exist, he's actually making things up.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl...-it-wouldnt-work/story-e6frf3e3-1227460613963

Sheahan believes a 12-team competition would serve the game better, meaning the elimination of six current clubs.

“I think we have way too many teams … the optimum is a 12-team competition where everybody plays each other twice and there are superstars everywhere,” Sheahan said on Fox Footy’s AFL 360.

1. Why is a "12-team competition" optimum? Why not 11 or 10 or 13 or 18 or 36? No evidence to support this claim.
2. Removing six teams won't leave "superstars" everywhere. There is not a finite number of "superstars" in the AFL in the first place, rather a proportion (say top 5%) of players... because they are better than the rest. In every level of football league in Australia there are "superstars", even in weak competitions. They are not "superstars" because they are the best footballers in Australia, but because they are better than everyone else around them. Once again, there is no evidence to support this claim.

Sheahan believes the skills of the game have declined because the talent pool is too diluted with 18 teams in the competition.

3. I would argue that the skills of the game have not declined but improved. Again, if he wants to state they have, there is no evidence to support this claim. I can give two reasons why one may think they've declined:
- There is far far far more defensive pressure around the ball user than there used to be
- Only remembering the 'good skills', because the only matches or highlights anyone ever watches of 'the good old days' will be the gun players or matches. Let's not forget that no footage exists of most games from 'the halcyon days', nor was it possible in that era to watch more than one match a weekend.

“It’s the lack of skills of the poorer teams … for the first time in my life, I no longer feel a compulsion to go to the footy,” Sheahan said.

4. See point 3 for "lack of skills" response.

5. Clearly the one huge change in the past decade or two is a change in professionalism, encompassing fitness improvements, huge increases in coaching staff, far more emphasis on defensive pressure and skills, and so on. None of these would be changed by reducing the number of teams.

If he doesn't feel compelled to go to the footy, that's fine. But there is no evidence of any of his claims, nor evidence that his proposed solutions would help.

 

[B4Bear]

Sheahan has completely lost the plot.

Not only is he creating a solution to problems that don't exist, he's actually making things up.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl...-it-wouldnt-work/story-e6frf3e3-1227460613963

1. Why is a "12-team competition" optimum? Why not 11 or 10 or 13 or 18 or 36? No evidence to support this claim.
2. Removing six teams won't leave "superstars" everywhere. There is not a finite number of "superstars" in the AFL in the first place, rather a proportion (say top 5%) of players... because they are better than the rest. In every level of football league in Australia there are "superstars", even in weak competitions. They are not "superstars" because they are the best footballers in Australia, but because they are better than everyone else around them. Once again, there is no evidence to support this claim.


3. I would argue that the skills of the game have not declined but improved. Again, if he wants to state they have, there is no evidence to support this claim. I can give two reasons why one may think they've declined:
- There is far far far more defensive pressure around the ball user than there used to be
- Only remembering the 'good skills', because the only matches or highlights anyone ever watches of 'the good old days' will be the gun players or matches. Let's not forget that no footage exists of most games from 'the halcyon days', nor was it possible in that era to watch more than one match a weekend.


4. See point 3 for "lack of skills" response.

5. Clearly the one huge change in the past decade or two is a change in professionalism, encompassing fitness improvements, huge increases in coaching staff, far more empashis on defensive pressure and skills, and so on. None of these would be changed by reducing the number of teams.

If he doesn't feel compelled to go to the footy, that's fine. But there is no evidence of any of his claims, nor evidence that his proposed solutions would help.

Thank god that senile old prick has done his last list.

Hopefully his retirement home removes internet privileges next year.

 

[Hawkk]

This is all hypothetical. I wouldn't compare the current Carlton and Richmond as they've had very lean years.

Well if you are looking to consolidate / merge existing clubs you need to look at financial strength. The Hawks are currently the 2nd most financial club in Victoria.

Didn't Hawthorn nearly get merged with Melbourne despite the profits? Obviously Hawthorn now aren't the same as then. No reason why they (Carlton and Richmond ) can't become a powerhouse once they sort out on and off field issues. You as a Hawthorn supporter would know how quick things can change.

The Hawthorn vote to merge with Melbourne was mid 1996. In the years before the merger vote a number of clubs were bundled up in potential mergers. Examples included Melbourne-Richmond and Carlton-North Melbourne (more of a takeover than merger). These mergers and more are discussed in Ross Oakley's 2014 book as well as Ian Ridley's Urge to Merge publication (2002)

Hawthorn are in a good financial position at the moment, but it remains to be seen whether they can sustain that with a drop off in memberships, attendances, merchandise sales, prime time television and overall gloss that comes with success. They won't struggle financially because of said investments (like Essendon, who aren't struggling financially despite the last few years), but I'm not sure if they could maintain their mantra as a big and powerful club.

No better precedence than in the past. Hawthorn membership has been extremely resilient through good times and bad. We've seen Collingwood's membership start to plateau after the 2010 flag whilst Hawthorn's membership continued to grow in the years following the 2008 flag (2009, 2010 and 2011). Collingwood have a much larger fan base so to hold and grow the membership year-on-year is pretty impressive.

In fact aside from 2004-06 Hawthorn's membership and attendances have been in a steady upswing irrespective of on field performance (our biggest drawing season was 2010, the year after finishing 9th...in a season where we were 1-7 after 8 rounds)

Yes Hawthorn have drawn well in the past against the interstate sides, but for some reason, they don't draw that well against Melbourne teams. They won't draw well vs interstate sides when they go down the ladder, but don't have that big Victorian draw cards like Richmond and Carlton do to help them.

Since the start of 2008 the Hawks have drawn 60,000 plus to 35 of 82 home and away games at the MCG (23 of 54 home games). Of those games 20 were against non Victorian clubs...so its 20 of 34 home games against Vic opposition and 33 of 62 total games.

Averages for home and away games against Victorian clubs at the MCG (albeit during upswing) include:

V Geelong - 73,337 (14 games)
V Collingwood - 71,533 (13 games)
V Essendon - 63,222 (6 games)
V Carlton - 61,507 (3 games)
V Richmond - 47,780 (8 games)
V W Bulldogs - 44,836 (2 games)
V North Melbourne 42,308 (2 games)
V Melbourne - 40,738 (11 games)
V St Kilda - 39,222 (3 games)

Aside from Richmond and St Kilda I would say that we've drawn exceptionally well against Geelong and Collingwood and reasonable against all other Victorian clubs

For example, Carlton have had crowds of 80K+ and 70K+ in a year that they are contending for the spoon. Don't think Hawthorn would have that as they lack rivalries with other Melbourne teams. Interstate rivalries are never really as strong as local rivalries. Essendon is the obvious choice, but they are too crap to contend. The seeds are there as Essendon fans will always resent Hawthorn and vice versa.

Carlton have one single 70K+ crowd for the season and that was the season opening fixture against Richmond. Lets see how Easter Monday holds when Hawthorn and Geelong both tumble down the ladder.

Just think there are a few things that needs to happen before Hawthorn can be considered as a big club. It can happen within the next decade as they grow their next generation of support with continued success and continued failure of other former powerhouses.

Agreed, still my points above stands.