Expansion Expansion: Has the benefit been worth it?

[Jade]

First, let me start by pointing out to my non-Victorian supporting friends that I am not 'having a go' at your teams, but posing a question as to what expansion has done to the game and how people feel about that - so please try to make being defensive the last reaction...

I initially wanted to start a thread that effectively asked what was wrong with the Brisbane Lions - something clearly is. Struggling to attract and keep players, player unrest, low crowds etc - they have some issues.

But in reality, we all know what the core problem is. Brisbane exist in a non-traditional market, and the ground swell support that sustains other clubs simply doesn't exist there. As such, without sustained on field success the club struggles to remain viable without significant assistance.

I've posted a number of times my criticism of the Sydney Swans in the past, and don't wish to repeat them, however the same point applies - that without significant assistance the club struggles in the face of poor on field performance (granted, that has not been tested in a while).

West Coast, Fremantle and Adelaide have been outstanding successes, starting in football states. Port Adelaide I reserve judgement on, however I believe they have issues that have nothing to do with being an expansion side.

I fully supported the introduction of GWS and GC, including the extraordinary draft concessions they were given. However a question has crept in to my mind over the last few months:

For the last twenty years or so we have in one shape or another played in an unequal league through the various concessions given to these clubs, how long is too long before we'd prefer to have a level playing ground?

The benefits of expansion are tangible and enormous - and should not be disregarded lightly. The broadcast rights deal just signed should be a giant example of that - I do not deny that ALL clubs have benefited from this windfall.

I think we all kidded ourselves that it was a short to mid-term issue. That we all have to give up 'some' equality for the sake of the game as a whole. But I think we all need to reconcile ourselves with the fact that this appears to be a permanent condition. That we will consistently have a level of inequality skewed in favour of non-traditional markets.

Maybe it's the fact that my own club has not experienced success in a while, I accept that. But the question I pose to BigFooty is this;

Is the benefit of inequality worth it?

 

[Tuco]

$2.5b tv rights deal
North, StKilda, Bulldogs, Melb all still in the League
Memberships highest in history
Participation doing well
AFL Future Fund
Majority of clubs not technically bankrupt

Yep. Expansion has been a disaster.

 

[Tony Harrison]

First, let me start by pointing out to my non-Victorian supporting friends that I am not 'having a go' at your teams, but posing a question as to what expansion has done to the game and how people feel about that - so please try to make being defensive the last reaction...

I initially wanted to start a thread that effectively asked what was wrong with the Brisbane Lions - something clearly is. Struggling to attract and keep players, player unrest, low crowds etc - they have some issues.

But in reality, we all know what the core problem is. Brisbane exist in a non-traditional market, and the ground swell support that sustains other clubs simply doesn't exist there. As such, without sustained on field success the club struggles to remain viable without significant assistance.

I've posted a number of times my criticism of the Sydney Swans in the past, and don't wish to repeat them, however the same point applies - that without significant assistance the club struggles in the face of poor on field performance (granted, that has not been tested in a while).

West Coast, Fremantle and Adelaide have been outstanding successes, starting in football states. Port Adelaide I reserve judgement on, however I believe they have issues that have nothing to do with being an expansion side.

I fully supported the introduction of GWS and GC, including the extraordinary draft concessions they were given. However a question has crept in to my mind over the last few months:

For the last twenty years or so we have in one shape or another played in an unequal league through the various concessions given to these clubs, how long is too long before we'd prefer to have a level playing ground?

The benefits of expansion are tangible and enormous - and should not be disregarded lightly. The broadcast rights deal just signed should be a giant example of that - I do not deny that ALL clubs have benefited from this windfall.

I think we all kidded ourselves that it was a short to mid-term issue. That we all have to give up 'some' equality for the sake of the game as a whole. But I think we all need to reconcile ourselves with the fact that this appears to be a permanent condition. That we will consistently have a level of inequality skewed in favour of non-traditional markets.

Maybe it's the fact that my own club has not experienced success in a while, I accept that. But the question I pose to BigFooty is this;

Is the benefit of inequality worth it?

Hang on, what benefit?
Broadcast rights give people more money.
Doesn't really improve the spectacle and enjoyment of the game IMO.
It's like shoving religion down non-religous peoples throats.

 

[Jade]

$2.5b tv rights deal
North, StKilda, Bulldogs, Melb all still in the League
Memberships highest in history
Participation doing well
AFL Future Fund
Majority of clubs not technically bankrupt

Yep. Expansion has been a disaster.

I very specifically pointed out the enormous benefit.

 

[Jade]

Hang on, what benefit?
Broadcast rights give people more money.
Doesn't really improve the spectacle and enjoyment of the game IMO.
It's like shoving religion down non-religous peoples throats.

That money is the primary reason that death of clubs is no longer a realistic threat. It's also made the league entirely professional. However I agree it has not translated to a better spectacle.

 

[Glenn_]

From a Sydney viewpoint you would have to say yes, take Sydney out of the AFL landscape and you wouldn't be getting close to the latest media deal as a result all clubs suffering from that.
From a Corporate viewpoint, Sydney have the second longest running major sponsorship of any team, and a long list of sponsors at varying levels , also a record season membership wise bringing more $$$$ into the AFL that has them sitting comfortably above some "Traditional" Victorian teams.

(Edited for accuracy)

 

[Rotayjay]

Financially? You'd have to agree the answer is yes. Otherwise? Nope. The talent is now spread far too thin.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

The time was right.

 

[Jade]

From a Sydney viewpoint you would have to say yes, take Sydney out of the AFL landscape and you wouldn't be getting close to the latest media deal as a result all clubs suffering from that.
From a Corporate viewpoint, Sydney have the longest running major sponsorship of any team, and a long list of sponsors at varying levels , also a record season membership wise bringing more $$$$ into the AFL that has them sitting comfortably above some "Traditional" Victorian teams.

Sydney the city or Sydney the team? I ask because I presented a viewpoint some time ago that 'a' team was necessary in Sydney (from the financial viewpoint you have touched on), but that team didn't have to be the Sydney we all know.

 

[Tuco]

I very specifically pointed out the enormous benefit.

But you gave it no weight.

Please don't underestimate how lucky we are that so many foundation clubs are still with us.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't part with any of them just to see a few more 'heartland' premierships listed on a wiki page.

Fitzroy and South Melbourne were not aberrations. They were examples of where the League was heading.

Even with expansion, we almost lost the Hawks to a merger only a short time ago.

Something had to change.

 

[Jade]

Financially? You'd have to agree the answer is yes. Otherwise? Nope. The talent is now spread far too thin.

I don't mind the spread of talent so much, however I am concerned that access to that talent is not equal.

 

[Ichabod Noodle]

From a Corporate viewpoint, Sydney have the longest running major sponsorship of any team,

Geelong and Ford would dispute this...

 

[Mr Magic]

First, let me start by pointing out to my non-Victorian supporting friends that I am not 'having a go' at your teams, but posing a question as to what expansion has done to the game and how people feel about that - so please try to make being defensive the last reaction...

I initially wanted to start a thread that effectively asked what was wrong with the Brisbane Lions - something clearly is. Struggling to attract and keep players, player unrest, low crowds etc - they have some issues.

But in reality, we all know what the core problem is. Brisbane exist in a non-traditional market, and the ground swell support that sustains other clubs simply doesn't exist there. As such, without sustained on field success the club struggles to remain viable without significant assistance.

I've posted a number of times my criticism of the Sydney Swans in the past, and don't wish to repeat them, however the same point applies - that without significant assistance the club struggles in the face of poor on field performance (granted, that has not been tested in a while).

West Coast, Fremantle and Adelaide have been outstanding successes, starting in football states. Port Adelaide I reserve judgement on, however I believe they have issues that have nothing to do with being an expansion side.

I fully supported the introduction of GWS and GC, including the extraordinary draft concessions they were given. However a question has crept in to my mind over the last few months:

For the last twenty years or so we have in one shape or another played in an unequal league through the various concessions given to these clubs, how long is too long before we'd prefer to have a level playing ground?

The benefits of expansion are tangible and enormous - and should not be disregarded lightly. The broadcast rights deal just signed should be a giant example of that - I do not deny that ALL clubs have benefited from this windfall.

I think we all kidded ourselves that it was a short to mid-term issue. That we all have to give up 'some' equality for the sake of the game as a whole. But I think we all need to reconcile ourselves with the fact that this appears to be a permanent condition. That we will consistently have a level of inequality skewed in favour of non-traditional markets.

Maybe it's the fact that my own club has not experienced success in a while, I accept that. But the question I pose to BigFooty is this;

Is the benefit of inequality worth it?

As an interstate supporter you realise that some do not consider themselves as having teams.

Just because an executive says this town has such and such's team does not mean they regard it as their team.

Just because North and Hawks go to Tassie would not mean Tassie thinks they would have a team I would imagine.

Just because a new club chases corporate dollars in a certain town does not mean people around the city or broader area will follow them.


Just because a interstate follower spends money on foxtel does not mean he or she really has a team.

Further more since most teams survive from a pot of money distributed from AFL HQ via foxtel/free to air rights it is debatable any area has their team and is actually independent.

In fact I question there is actually a competition of sport at all when power and influence seem to have more say in success than onfield efforts.


Has foxtel ever thought to survey subscribers who follows which team and consider that in their marketing?

 

[Jade]

But you gave it no weight.

Completely disagree. Here is my quote:

The benefits of expansion are tangible and enormous - and should not be disregarded lightly. The broadcast rights deal just signed should be a giant example of that - I do not deny that ALL clubs have benefited from this windfall.

Please don't underestimate how lucky we are that so many foundation clubs are still with us.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't part with any of them just to see a few more 'heartland' premierships listed on a wiki page.

Fitzroy and South Melbourne were not aberrations. They were examples of where the League was heading. Something had to change.

Heartland premierships do not concern me (don't get me wrong, would love a few more myself), but unfairly disadvantaging those clubs does.

 

[Jade]

As an interstate supporter you realise that some do not consider themselves as having teams.

Just because an executive says this town has such and such's team does not mean they regard it is there team.

Just because North and Hawks go to Tassie would not mean Tassie thinks they would have a team I would imagine.


Just because a interstate follower spends money on foxtel does not mean he or she really has a team.

Further more since most teams survive from a pot of money distributed from AFL HQ via foxtel rights it is debatable any are has their team and is actually independent.

In fact I question there is actually a competition of sport at all when power and influence seem to have more say in success than onfield efforts

A scarily accurate post.

 

[Beer n Skittles]

AFL CEO can justify handing himself a massive paycheck, so yeah it achieved everything it set out to.

If they actually gave a crap about fans there'd be a team in Tassie

 

[Jaeger]

I would have said no, but I suspect the new teams might have extended our time at the top. If that is indeed the case, then yes it has been worth it from our perspective.

 

[Glenn_]

Sydney the city or Sydney the team? I ask because I presented a viewpoint some time ago that 'a' team was necessary in Sydney (from the financial viewpoint you have touched on), but that team didn't have to be the Sydney we all know.

Both imo, if the AFL wants to be truly national their is no way they could do it without a presence in the biggest market in the Country.
And from the team viewpoint of what has been achieved on and off field, bringing more people into the game in the form of new supporters, in turn brining in more $$$ to the club and the AFL.

 

[Mr Magic]

AFL CEO can justify handing himself a massive paycheck, so yeah it achieved everything it set out to.

If they actually gave a crap about fans there'd be a team in Tassie

Well the tassie economic argument is total BS. Fact is some teams are literally not viable without moneys redistributed from TV rights which mean alternative teams anywhere on the planet could replace them theoretically

 

[Jade]

I would have said no, but I suspect the new teams might have extended our time at the top. If that is indeed the case, then yes it has been worth it from our perspective.

Entirely possible.

 

[Glenn_]

Geelong and Ford would dispute this...

In terms of major naming right sponsorship?

 

[Tuco]

Completely disagree. Here is my quote:

The benefits of expansion are tangible and enormous - and should not be disregarded lightly. The broadcast rights deal just signed should be a giant example of that - I do not deny that ALL clubs have benefited from this windfall.



Heartland premierships do not concern me (don't get me wrong, would love a few more myself), but unfairly disadvantaging those clubs does.

I think on balance if the VFL wasn't imperilled to begin with this conversation would not even be hsppening.

Sydney and Brisbane helped. But with the extra money we were able to stave off further relocations. But growth in South East QLD and Western Sydney is simply an extension of the inevitable outcomes of a strategy of creating a national code.

 

[Jade]

In terms of major front of shirt sponsorship?

 

[Rotayjay]

I don't mind the spread of talent so much, however I am concerned that access to that talent is not equal.

You're also right there. As someone in another thread pointed out, GWS could field an entire team of 22 players made up of top-10 draft picks. That's ludicrous, and even makes you wonder why Gold Coast didn't get that many.

 

[Papa G]

As the VFL it was an uneven league too. Just the uneveness was weighted exclusively towards Essendon, Collingwood, Carlton and Richmond.

More to the point, as a proper representative national league, GWS and Gold Coast were not necessary, there should be 2 less Victorian teams and there should be a Tasmanian side. The correct balance for the AFL is 8,2,2,1,1,1.