Poor choice of words by me, referring to the context of your remarks being Tas ... I acknowledge I was plain wrong to suggest you were not concerned about the game nationally.
3rd West Australian team VS long term viability of poorer VIC Teams
- Thread starter Defacto
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Poor choice of words by me, referring to the context of your remarks being Tas ... I acknowledge I was plain wrong to suggest you were not concerned about the game nationally.
Reality rules
Cancelled
The big problem of a 3rd AFL team in WA is that the WAFL can't support the local league with 2 AFL teams, let alone a 3rd.
Reality rules
Cancelled
Firstly, I don't follow the WAFL nor do I have any interest in it, never have and never will.
The WAFL is a joke as it stands now, to enlist support for another reserves side to the AFL team won't happen. That is the cold hard reality is it not?
I dont follow the argument? What has that got to do with having a 3rd AFL club? I would have thought generating more money would be good for WA football, N'est-ce pas?
Reality rules
Cancelled
The state league has NOT got enough to support another aligned reserves side to a 3rd WA AFL team. The WAFL is the body like VFL and won't ever entertain a 3 AFL side here. It might be more money but less power for them.
Last edited:
When it comes to money, dont stand in the way of a football administrator!!
If the $$ stack up for a new team in the new stadium, then stand well back!
The WAFL will too.
telsor
Hall of Famer
I thought you said it it was all politics?
Are you saying a Tas team wouldn't make money? After all, if they would, the football administrators would be all over it, right???
Reality rules
Cancelled
I don't think he has any idea on what he's saying.
telsor
Hall of Famer
I think he does, just that the 'rules' change depending on who he's talking about.
Reality rules
Cancelled
He's got simply no idea about WA football or how it's managed by the WA Football Commission.
telsor
Hall of Famer
Wouldn't matter.
The AFL is all about money, except where Tas is concerned, where it seems it's all about politics.
Dont put words in my mouth. You like to bend comments & think you are smart.
The decision to start a new team is always a political one. Economics is just a tool of Politics.
Politics is the theory & the art involved in influencing people. It is all about the distribution of power & thus resource allocation in a community. He who has political control has the power to allocate resources.
A city of 2 million people which has such a strong Aussie rules heritage surely can support 3 clubs. Perth with 40% the population of Melbourne has 20% the number of teams. Thats an obvious imbalance. An economic system would have sorted this anomaly out years ago. A political one has many other factors to consider & takes much more time to change.
Thats because Politics has to allow for winners & losers & that effect on the political power distribution. No one wants to lose anything! Everyone wants more. The Power elite have power to make decisions, but only to a point.
EG. The AFL could start GWS & GC, but cant kill off an excess establishment team, no matter how shithouse they may have operated from a management & business point of view, for years.
Ian Dunross
Premiership Player
- Mar 18, 2013
- 4,718
- 6,992
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Glenelg Tigers
I'm genuinely surpruse the AFL has actively pushed for a 3rd club in WA.
It would allow Sunday night timeslots that would make a killing in TV revenues I would have thought.
It would allow Sunday night timeslots that would make a killing in TV revenues I would have thought.
telsor
Hall of Famer
Great, now apply the same logic to a Tas team.
You really are thick sometimes. Just say if you dont understand a nuanced discussion.
You should just go & shout for Your Tigers & Victorian football interests. You clearly hate the A in AFL.
The rest of us might at least try & make some sensible discussion about the game.
telsor
Hall of Famer
So rather than respond to my point and apply the same logic to Tasmania, you choose to play the man instead.
Pretty much confirms your lack of argument.
The WAFC is a body similar to AFL - the WAFL is the premier state based comp in WA just as the VFL is in Vic.
The WAFC will make decisions on WA footy not the WAFL.
Reality rules
Cancelled
I know that, but trying to explain this to a Tasmanian was hard then I anticipated.
Why do you require one set of rules, you'd be stuck with VFA footy from the 1880s.
To expect GWS to be comparable with Melbourne defies logic.
telsor
Hall of Famer
Nah...
AFL is WAFC & WAFL combined for the national league, while the VFL is just a department within with virtually no independence at all (as is AFLTAS, AFLNSW, AFLQLD, etc).
I think we'd all be better off if the AFL broke it's different roles into genuinely separate entities, but that's not likely.
telsor
Hall of Famer
No, but when talking about teams in heartland states, shouldn't the criteria be, at least, very similar?
- Moderator
- #323
in theory yes, but technically each has its own board, including AFL Victoria.
I support a third WA team but am left dumbfounded as to what the name or identity would be. It's not obvious like Norwood in SA who have double the next best in premierships and supporters.
I think I the first season of Perth Stadium the Eagles will have the highest average home attendance in the league with Freo top four.
I think I the first season of Perth Stadium the Eagles will have the highest average home attendance in the league with Freo top four.
Why? When its relevant sure, but not when applied as blinkers. Just as you cant line up say the Eagles & the Tigers in a straight line comparison, the circumstances, the reality of these heartland clubs needs interpretation to reach any meaningful comparison.
