Did Gil just put mergers back on the agenda?

[The Majestic]

There was a mention during a 7News Report that the AFL would be looking at a 20th side, possibly from WA as apparently the ideal league size would be at 20 teams.

 

[Saab NLAW]

Not quite right.

• Melbourne supporters voted YES to merge with Hawthorn. So it can/could happen.

I was there on that night, most of the Melbourne members were locked out of the venue and unable to vote.

If the Hawks members had of voted for it then there was going to be an immediate court challenge from the Gutnick lead side

 

[Colonial]

I tried to point out here the angst this caused at the time but got howled down by Giants supporters.

It created a LOT of damage amongst the senior football communities in Western Sydney, which anyone at the Giants with two functioning brain cells could have seen coming if they had the slightest understanding of the game out here.

For me it's meant that ten years down the track I still haven't been to a Giants game as I simply don't care about watching them live. I'd rather make the extra miles into the SCG to watch the Swans. I've retained my Giants membership though to support the game in general.

Can all make mistakes, we all do.

Frustrating part is when the club and AFL don’t learn.

They are talking up how they are building Tassie and listening to Tassie, yet they still only listen to Vics or those from the Eastern Suburbs for the Giants.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Original Crawford proposal was 75% but clubs only accepted 2/3rds majority to overturn the commission.

Thanks to The_Wookie for both links. First link is to the actual Crawford Report submitted to the AFL in March 1993 and voted / approved in July 1993.

There were 15 clubs in 1993 so 2/3rds made more sense than 3/4 as = 11.25 ie 12 clubs out of 15.

https://footyindustry.com/docs/AFL%20-%20The%20Crawford%20Report%20(1993).pdf

The AFL Commission - Formation and Powers

The following article was written for the footybusiness wiki using the AFL 1993 and 1998 Annual Reports Every so often someone asks a question about the powers of the commission, and so Ive drafted this up. Along the way I covered the Crawford Report, about which there is a lack of...

www.bigfooty.com

Unanimous Approval

On July 19, 1993, the Board of Directors unanimously approved new Memorandum and Articles of Association which reflected the recommendations of the Crawford Report.
The Date was effectively the last meeting of the Board of Directors as the Crawford Report recommended that all powers and responsibilities to run the competition be referred to the AFL Commission.

Club Powers

The Clubs however retain specific powers in relation to the admission, relocation and merging of clubs.

• Any decision by the commission to admit or relocate a club or approve the merger of clubs can be reversed by the clubs at a duly constituted meeting of clubs called within 14 days of receiving formal notice of a Commission decision to admit, relocate or approve a merger of clubs.
• A two thirds majority is required to overturn any such decision by the commission. Three clubs may requisition a meeting of clubs to reverse a decision by the Commission to admit or relocate or approve a merge of clubs. Clubs cannot be merged unless the clubs who are party to the merger first agree.
• Clubs also have a reserve power on the possible expulsion of a club from the competition. Any decision by the Commission to expel a club must be ratified at a general meeting of clubs by a simple majority.

While the AFL Commission was given wider powers to run the game when the recommendations of the Crawford Report were adopted, Clubs retained the right to appoint the Commission.

 

[The_Wookie]

Can all make mistakes, we all do.

Frustrating part is when the club and AFL don’t learn.

They are talking up how they are building Tassie and listening to Tassie, yet they still only listen to Vics or those from the Eastern Suburbs for the Giants.

with the league stating they will have a Tasmanian president and ceo, and the Tas Gov appointing almost half the board as well as paying a significant amount annuall, I think itll be a little different

 

[HairyO]

Its probably just a shot across the bow type statement.

Its probably also an outgoing CEO who is talking pracalities rather than policy.

For the AFL to merge a couple of sides it would have to be voluntary and the club directors wear that heat like in 1996 with Melbourne and Hawthorn.

To kill off a team, means the AFL executives and commissioners have to wear the heat, maybe even death threats.

Its easy for an outgoing CEO who doesnt have to wear that burden to make a statement that there might be a reduction in teams.

I think it means SFA.

Exactly. He is a lame duck. Nothing he says matters now.

He can now pretend to have been wanting to make a bunch of important decisions which he never would have actually done while he was CEO. Inventing his legacy, given his actual legacy is hundreds of millions of dollars wasted, local footy dying all across the country, and the game looking far worse than it did when he came in.

Exactly like his predecessor. And exactly like what his hand-picked replacement will do.

 

[HairyO]

Original Crawford proposal was 75% but clubs only accepted 2/3rds majority to overturn the commission.

Thanks to The_Wookie for both links. First link is to the actual Crawford Report submitted to the AFL in March 1993 and voted / approved in July 1993.

There were 15 clubs in 1993 so 2/3rds made more sense than 3/4 as = 11.25 ie 12 clubs out of 15.

https://footyindustry.com/docs/AFL%20-%20The%20Crawford%20Report%20(1993).pdf

View attachment 1677819

The AFL Commission - Formation and Powers

The following article was written for the footybusiness wiki using the AFL 1993 and 1998 Annual Reports Every so often someone asks a question about the powers of the commission, and so Ive drafted this up. Along the way I covered the Crawford Report, about which there is a lack of...

www.bigfooty.com

Unanimous Approval

On July 19, 1993, the Board of Directors unanimously approved new Memorandum and Articles of Association which reflected the recommendations of the Crawford Report.
The Date was effectively the last meeting of the Board of Directors as the Crawford Report recommended that all powers and responsibilities to run the competition be referred to the AFL Commission.

Club Powers

The Clubs however retain specific powers in relation to the admission, relocation and merging of clubs.

• Any decision by the commission to admit or relocate a club or approve the merger of clubs can be reversed by the clubs at a duly constituted meeting of clubs called within 14 days of receiving formal notice of a Commission decision to admit, relocate or approve a merger of clubs.
• A two thirds majority is required to overturn any such decision by the commission. Three clubs may requisition a meeting of clubs to reverse a decision by the Commission to admit or relocate or approve a merge of clubs. Clubs cannot be merged unless the clubs who are party to the merger first agree.
• Clubs also have a reserve power on the possible expulsion of a club from the competition. Any decision by the Commission to expel a club must be ratified at a general meeting of clubs by a simple majority.

While the AFL Commission was given wider powers to run the game when the recommendations of the Crawford Report were adopted, Clubs retained the right to appoint the Commission.

Problem is the AFL owns/controls half the teams because they are so financially dependent on the extra handouts, so getting the 2/3 of votes will be very hard.

 

[The_Wookie]

Original Crawford proposal was 75% but clubs only accepted 2/3rds majority to overturn the commission.

Thanks to The_Wookie for both links. First link is to the actual Crawford Report submitted to the AFL in March 1993 and voted / approved in July 1993.

There were 15 clubs in 1993 so 2/3rds made more sense than 3/4 as = 11.25 ie 12 clubs out of 15.

https://footyindustry.com/docs/AFL%20-%20The%20Crawford%20Report%20(1993).pdf

View attachment 1677819

The AFL Commission - Formation and Powers

The following article was written for the footybusiness wiki using the AFL 1993 and 1998 Annual Reports Every so often someone asks a question about the powers of the commission, and so Ive drafted this up. Along the way I covered the Crawford Report, about which there is a lack of...

www.bigfooty.com

Unanimous Approval

On July 19, 1993, the Board of Directors unanimously approved new Memorandum and Articles of Association which reflected the recommendations of the Crawford Report.
The Date was effectively the last meeting of the Board of Directors as the Crawford Report recommended that all powers and responsibilities to run the competition be referred to the AFL Commission.

Club Powers

The Clubs however retain specific powers in relation to the admission, relocation and merging of clubs.

• Any decision by the commission to admit or relocate a club or approve the merger of clubs can be reversed by the clubs at a duly constituted meeting of clubs called within 14 days of receiving formal notice of a Commission decision to admit, relocate or approve a merger of clubs.
• A two thirds majority is required to overturn any such decision by the commission. Three clubs may requisition a meeting of clubs to reverse a decision by the Commission to admit or relocate or approve a merge of clubs. Clubs cannot be merged unless the clubs who are party to the merger first agree.
• Clubs also have a reserve power on the possible expulsion of a club from the competition. Any decision by the Commission to expel a club must be ratified at a general meeting of clubs by a simple majority.

While the AFL Commission was given wider powers to run the game when the recommendations of the Crawford Report were adopted, Clubs retained the right to appoint the Commission.

The relative sections contained in the updated 2018 AFL Constitution

https://footyindustry.com/docs/Constitution%20of%20the%20Australian%20Football%20League%20(March%202018).pdf

 

[Colonial]

with the league stating they will have a Tasmanian president and ceo, and the Tas Gov appointing almost half the board as well as paying a significant amount annuall, I think itll be a little different

Will 100% be different.
That’s the point. Meanwhile they stick with the Victorian and Eastern Sydney viewpoints up here.

 

[Ausbenito]

Exactly. He is a lame duck. Nothing he says matters now.

He can now pretend to have been wanting to make a bunch of important decisions which he never would have actually done while he was CEO. Inventing his legacy, given his actual legacy is hundreds of millions of dollars wasted, local footy dying all across the country, and the game looking far worse than it did when he came in.

Exactly like his predecessor. And exactly like what his hand-picked replacement will do.

You sound nervous what are you referring to about wasting millions on ? having the audacity to promote the game outside Victoria?
No Gil has done a great job all round will be hard to beat I still believe there is one too many sides in Melbourne how North Melbourne is making a profit says alot for accountants in this country mind boggling.

 

[The_Wookie]

Exactly. He is a lame duck. Nothing he says matters now.

That really depends which of them is the actual CEO with the seat on the Commission - Dillons role isnt official until October.

He can now pretend to have been wanting to make a bunch of important decisions which he never would have actually done while he was CEO. Inventing his legacy, given his actual legacy is hundreds of millions of dollars wasted, local footy dying all across the country, and the game looking far worse than it did when he came in.

Exactly like his predecessor. And exactly like what his hand-picked replacement will do.

Hmm creating AFLW out of thin air 4 years before it was even expected is no small achievement and getting the Tassie deal over the line is no small thing either. Record attendances - that were headed for records 3 years ago before COVID hit - record memberships, record broadcast audiences and record media rights deals.

Blaming the AFL or the AFL CEO for the entire state of local footy is ridiculous given much of local footys issues are socio-economic ones that are well outside the scope of the league.

 

[HairyO]

You sound nervous what are you referring to about wasting millions on ? having the audacity to promote the game outside Victoria?
No Gil has done a great job all round will be hard to beat I still believe there is one too many sides in Melbourne how North Melbourne is making a profit says alot for accountants in this country mind boggling.

Hundreds of millions poured down the drain with GCS and GWS who will simply never be popular. That isnt promoting the game outside Victoria, its ego thinking that he (AFL) can steal audience from the NRL, when even the NRL struggles with the Gold Coast, and Western Sydney is the NRL's heartland.

We could have gone down the path for Tasmania 10 years ago instead - given the population and popularity hasnt changed much, and there was always going to be a huge injection of money from State and Federal governments. We could have had a team in a traditional AFL state. We also could have looked at the possibility of having a 3rd team in WA. Certainly WCE are hugely successful and over-sell all their home games so there is already availability for one of the WAFL clubs to have been elevated.

Or there is a proper plan to force the poor Victorian teams to fix their finances, get less support, and either survive better on their own or merge.

 

[The_Wookie]

Will 100% be different.
That’s the point. Meanwhile they stick with the Victorian and Eastern Sydney viewpoints up here.

If they had gone with Sydney viewpoints theres every chance GWS wouldnt exist. It wasnt exactly being called for up there.

 

[The_Wookie]

Hundreds of millions poured down the drain with GCS and GWS who will simply never be popular. That isnt promoting the game outside Victoria, its ego thinking that he (AFL) can steal audience from the NRL, when even the NRL struggles with the Gold Coast, and Western Sydney is the NRL's heartland.

Set in place by Demetriou's stewardship, not Mclachlans, and was never going to be undone. And its not like it wasnt approved unanimously by every other club and the Commission. The AFL had taken a big media deal and had cash - it was a time to take a big risk. Never die wondering.

and of course it promotes the game outside Victoria.

We could have gone down the path for Tasmania 10 years ago instead - given the population and popularity hasnt changed much, and there was always going to be a huge injection of money from State and Federal governments. We could have had a team in a traditional AFL state.

They probably should have but then Tasmanian Governments werent falling over themselves to come to the party with funding. Took a very firm stance from Gutwein and later Rockliff, including the guarantee of funding and a new stadium to get it over the line.

And without that, it was exactly what every AFL administration had said before hand: not viable.

We also could have looked at the possibility of having a 3rd team in WA. Certainly WCE are hugely successful and over-sell all their home games so there is already availability for one of the WAFL clubs to have been elevated.

Could have. But the WAFC holding two licenses makes it kind of complicated - and given 10 years ago they controlled the only ground of any decent size in WA, and the AFL wont hand them a third license, it was a non starter then.

I mean hell, even today the WAFC chair was arcing up over the idea.

Or there is a proper plan to force the poor Victorian teams to fix their finances, get less support, and either survive better on their own or merge.

Its literally the AFLs job to support the clubs it has.

 

[Chief]

and of course it promotes the game outside Victoria.

Also gives everyone a free win or two every year.

Oh wait...

 

[Colonial]

If they had gone with Sydney viewpoints theres every chance GWS wouldnt exist. It wasnt exactly being called for up there.

It wasn’t massively no.

But listening to Melbourne and the Eastern Suburbs hasn’t won over the west. Plenty of people follow the sport up here but they haven’t bought into the part time club.

Vics latest idea, via Eddie, is the NSW Giants.

 

[Colonial]

Hundreds of millions poured down the drain with GCS and GWS who will simply never be popular. That isnt promoting the game outside Victoria, its ego thinking that he (AFL) can steal audience from the NRL, when even the NRL struggles with the Gold Coast, and Western Sydney is the NRL's heartland.

We could have gone down the path for Tasmania 10 years ago instead - given the population and popularity hasnt changed much, and there was always going to be a huge injection of money from State and Federal governments. We could have had a team in a traditional AFL state. We also could have looked at the possibility of having a 3rd team in WA. Certainly WCE are hugely successful and over-sell all their home games so there is already availability for one of the WAFL clubs to have been elevated.

Or there is a proper plan to force the poor Victorian teams to fix their finances, get less support, and either survive better on their own or merge.

Lol love the Vic fishbowl view point. What ya going to do now without Tassie money?

 

[Ausbenito]

Unbelievable how many of you guys are still living in the old VFL mentality and can't see the big picture.
The AFL has done a brilliant job of promoting the game nationally to make it actually relevant going forward or else it would have become a niche sport played in a few states of Australia not hard to understand.
The AFL isn't going to take over Western Sydney ever but at least it can have a presence and profile and hopefully give a few kids a start and understanding of the game.
The area has 4 million people it will take a generation get over it Tassie has a team now which is great.
If Melbourne has a team go back to the VFL or relocates I am not worried it's for the greater good.

 

[sherb]

Unbelievable how many of you guys are still living in the old VFL mentality and can't see the big picture.
The AFL has done a brilliant job of promoting the game nationally to make it actually relevant going forward or else it would have become a niche sport played in a few states of Australia not hard to understand.
The AFL isn't going to take over Western Sydney ever but at least it can have a presence and profile and hopefully give a few kids a start and understanding of the game.
The area has 4 million people it will take a generation get over it Tassie has a team now which is great.
If Melbourne has a team go back to the VFL or relocates I am not worried it's for the greater good.

I think that's a little optimistic, my recollection is that the GWS population is around 2.5 million.

But, whatever the correct figure, the area certainly has more than enough people to make an AFL team work. The problem to date is, in my view, that the Giants haven't been 100% committed to Greater Western Sydney. The most blatant indication of that is the fact that they are playing home games in Canberra.

 

[Walshawk]

I think that's a little optimistic, my recollection is that the GWS population is around 2.5 million.

But, whatever the correct figure, the area certainly has more than enough people to make an AFL team work. The problem to date is, in my view, that the Giants haven't been 100% committed to Greater Western Sydney. The most blatant indication of that is the fact that they are playing home games in Canberra.

The problem is actually that people in Western Sydney have very little interest in becoming AFL fans. And, as the AFL discovered AFTER putting a tram out west, folks in the north-west don’t consider themselves as being in the ‘western suburbs’ anyway so that will remain Swans territory. When you look at how few GWS fans were at the SCG for the Bridge Battle, I would suggest a lot of people going to GWS games at Showgrounds actually have Swans as their first team. I really doubt that they have brought more than a couple of thousand new fans to the game In Sydney.

They should get Hawthorn to cover the Canberra games post 2025, and give the Western Sydney Giants (for god‘s sake drop “GWS“) as serious crack at Sydney with all home games.

 

[Colonial]

The problem is actually that people in Western Sydney have very little interest in becoming AFL fans. And, as the AFL discovered AFTER putting a tram out west, folks in the north-west don’t consider themselves as being in the ‘western suburbs’ anyway so that will remain Swans territory. When you look at how few GWS fans were at the SCG for the Bridge Battle, I would suggest a lot of people going to GWS games at Showgrounds actually have Swans as their first team. I really doubt that they have brought more than a couple of thousand new fans to the game In Sydney.

They should get Hawthorn to cover the Canberra games post 2025, and give the Western Sydney Giants (for god‘s sake drop “GWS“) as serious crack at Sydney with all home games.

Giants have made a lot of errors in my opinion, but I don’t think that most of our fans are “Giants second swans 1st” and I was certainly new to the game with regard to when we joined the comp.
Most of my experience would have a equal mix of new to the game and changing clubs.
We would have a lot more if we were WS only.
The “Greater” part of the name hasn’t effected anything.

 

[HairyO]

Giants have made a lot of errors in my opinion, but I don’t think that most of our fans are “Giants second swans 1st” and I was certainly new to the game with regard to when we joined the comp.
Most of my experience would have a equal mix of new to the game and changing clubs.
We would have a lot more if we were WS only.
The “Greater” part of the name hasn’t effected anything.

The only Giants fans I know have 2 memberships. Their actual club they have always supported and Giants - so they can see more than just 1 or 2 games each year (when their team comes to Sydney to plan Swans or Giants).

That said, I dont know many Swans members either, but plenty of SCG members who support the Swans.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

The problem is actually that people in Western Sydney have very little interest in becoming AFL fans. And, as the AFL discovered AFTER putting a tram out west, folks in the north-west don’t consider themselves as being in the ‘western suburbs’ anyway so that will remain Swans territory. When you look at how few GWS fans were at the SCG for the Bridge Battle, I would suggest a lot of people going to GWS games at Showgrounds actually have Swans as their first team. I really doubt that they have brought more than a couple of thousand new fans to the game In Sydney.

They should get Hawthorn to cover the Canberra games post 2025, and give the Western Sydney Giants (for god‘s sake drop “GWS“) as serious crack at Sydney with all home games.

GWS and Canberra have a new 10 year deal that started this year and which expires in 2032 to play 3 afl and 2 AflW games annually. This is a deal that GWS, ACT and AFL agree works well for all parties. By the end of this deal GWS will have had a 21 year commitment and relationship with us in Canberra - more than Norths, Melbourne and Bulldogs combined who had previously sold games here.

GWS is part of Canberra just as Canberra is part of GWS’s remit. Almost 20% of GWS membership come from Canberra. The relationship that Canberra and GWS is the best for both sides as seen by the long term deal that was signed.

Hawthorn is still trying to sell a couple of games in Launceston, even after the entry of the Tasmanian team, as they have a 20 year relationship there and almost 10k Tasmanian members.

 

[Walshawk]

GWS and Canberra have a new 10 year deal that started this year and which expires in 2032 to play 3 afl and 2 AflW games annually. This is a deal that GWS, ACT and AFL agree works well for all parties. By the end of this deal GWS will have had a 21 year commitment and relationship with us in Canberra - more than Norths, Melbourne and Bulldogs combined who had previously sold games here.

GWS is part of Canberra just as Canberra is part of GWS’s remit. Almost 20% of GWS membership come from Canberra. The relationship that Canberra and GWS is the best for both sides as seen by the long term deal that was signed.

Hawthorn is still trying to sell a couple of games in Launceston, even after the entry of the Tasmanian team, as they have a 20 year relationship there and almost 10k Tasmanian members.

I am not saying removing the Giants from Canberra will be good for Canberra footy in the short term. But it will be good for footy in Sydney to play more games there. And, will increase Canberra’s chances of being the 20th team if the Giants can live without Canberra.

Hawks are hoping to play one game in Tas v Devils. Giving up home ground advantage is a bad idea I reckon.

 

[Colonial]

GWS and Canberra have a new 10 year deal that started this year and which expires in 2032 to play 3 afl and 2 AflW games annually. This is a deal that GWS, ACT and AFL agree works well for all parties. By the end of this deal GWS will have had a 21 year commitment and relationship with us in Canberra - more than Norths, Melbourne and Bulldogs combined who had previously sold games here.

GWS is part of Canberra just as Canberra is part of GWS’s remit. Almost 20% of GWS membership come from Canberra. The relationship that Canberra and GWS is the best for both sides as seen by the long term deal that was signed.

Hawthorn is still trying to sell a couple of games in Launceston, even after the entry of the Tasmanian team, as they have a 20 year relationship there and almost 10k Tasmanian members.

It doesn’t work well for the club in WS.