Expansion Expansion: Has the benefit been worth it?

[Colonial]

What concessions are Brisbane getting at the moment? Absolutely nothing. We are also receiving less financial support than most Victorian clubs from the AFL to go with it.

Whilst the market may of been there to expand the talent sure as hell isn't and if the AFL bow down to the AFLPA and grant hefty increases to the salary cap then you can guarantee that the big clubs will stay near the top of the tree forever and be able to rebuild 3 times faster than smaller clubs, because players will take $50k less to play for them.

The talent wasn't there to have 16 competitive sides let alone find the extra 84 players to fill two more lists. Honestly the talent will never be there for 18 teams, the simple reason is that AFL will not achieve the growth number required for it. Local footy in Victoria is sick, the number of small clubs going under would surprise many. The costs of running a club for a year would amaze many here and trying to find sponsors is harder and harder, it now costs upwards of $100k a year to run a club

Lotto numbers for next week?

 

[ydraw]

The alternative to expansion is the gradual death of the game and being supplanted by soccer. So yes, it is worth it.

Making it a truly national game is the only way that AFL will survive. If that means a slightly uneven competition for a decade or so, then it is still worth it. Uneven competitions exist in every sport.

 

[Jade]

The alternative to expansion is the gradual death of the game and being supplanted by soccer. So yes, it is worth it.

Making it a truly national game is the only way that AFL will survive. If that means a slightly uneven competition for a decade or so, then it is still worth it. Uneven competitions exist in every sport.

Solid post.

My concern is that the uneven comp you refer to now seems to be a permanent thing - as in, we've spent twenty years giving concessions already - when do we get to a point where ALL clubs have an equal opportunity to do well or * up.

 

[ydraw]

Solid post.

My concern is that the uneven comp you refer to now seems to be a permanent thing - as in, we've spent twenty years giving concessions already - when do we get to a point where ALL clubs have an equal opportunity to do well or **** up.

Competitions like the EPL have been uneven for 50 years and still extremely popular. I personally couldn't care if the same 4 teams won every year as long as there is still an AFL. And this is a matter of life or death for the AFL. It cannot survive forever being played in only 3 cities in the world. For AFL to survive long-term, it needs to keep expanding into new markets, both in and outside of Australia.

 

[Mr Magic]

The alternative to expansion is the gradual death of the game and being supplanted by soccer. So yes, it is worth it.

Making it a truly national game is the only way that AFL will survive. If that means a slightly uneven competition for a decade or so, then it is still worth it. Uneven competitions exist in every sport.

No.need to.fear. I have the answer to fix the game and fix the comp to

 

[jatz14]

Any danger of doing a bit of research before coming up with this crap? Bunbury's population is less than half of that, ditto the population for the South West region, and the entire Peel region has a population of about 90k.

They're about 30-50 years away from being able to support an AFL team let alone now. A third WA team will eventually be based out of Perth.

Which was the point. If saying the AFLs financial position invalidates the economic argument against a team in Tasmania, then it should invalidate the argument everywhere. This does not seem rational.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[The King!]

I would say only one club has damaged the afl more than any other and funnily enough the OP supports that team

 

[Kummerspeck]

Firstly, the VFL/AFL has never been an equal competition, or anything resembling it. Secondly, it never will be. When ten teams and the majority of the players come from one state, it's not going to happen.

 

[jatz14]

The only way to decide the impact of expansion is as part of a historical debate. In like 50 years.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[djpaulydemon]

Melbourne is a great example of how thin the talent is spread, so given you cant see it ...

Melbourne were s**t and still are s**t because we couldn't develop players. The "talent" was there when they were expected to go in the top 20 of the draft, they would have been in the first and second round even if there was still only 12 teams.

Like many people have said and even more people can't seem to understand, there are always going to be bad players regardless of how many teams there are. Good players have to be beating the bad players to be able to be seen as good. Many players dominate in the VFL or NEAFL yet can't get 10 disposal in an AFL match. Are they untalented? Obviously not, just there are better players making them look bad.

Not everyone can be elite, in fact according to champion data only the top 10% of players are technically elite, that means you can't have a competition full of the best players as only 10% of the those players are now the best. Understand?

Same reason why reducing the amount of games won't produce less pointless games, rather the pointless games will start 5 rounds in advance.

 

[DAWESOME!!]

I agree with some of what the OP says, but am mystified that a lot of his angst seems to be aimed at the Swans. They don't even count as an expansion club anymore, surely? They were once, but wanting to cut them now, after they've done the hard first 30 years and have now established themselves is daft.

including SA and WA teams had been an obvious unequivocal benefit. They aren't really expansion teams either.

I think the most recent expansion was a mixed bag. GWS makes absolute sense, and the pool of potential fans and revenue makes it worth taking a generation of pain to achieve.

Introducing a second team in Queensland has been a disaster from what I can see. Part of this reflects that both GCS and Brisbane have had seemingly a lot go wrong in the running of their clubs. But I don't think the Queensland market was ready to support it, and unlike GWS I don't think the payoff from the Gold Coast will ever be worth what it has done to the Lions.

It should have been GWS and Tassie.

 

[Freomaniac]

Yes it has. There is 2 teams in SA, WA, Qld and NSW, GWS might get a flag in 5-10 years, Not sure about the suns.

 

[Kwality]

The alternative to expansion is the gradual death of the game and being supplanted by soccer. So yes, it is worth it.

Making it a truly national game is the only way that AFL will survive. If that means a slightly uneven competition for a decade or so, then it is still worth it. Uneven competitions exist in every sport.

Expansion does not need more teams, 2nd tier footballers playing at the elite level. Compre?

You can follow the 2nd tier IF that's the footy you want, can follow underage footy if it floats your boat.

 

[ydraw]

Expansion does not need more teams, 2nd tier footballers playing at the elite level. Compre?

You can follow the 2nd tier IF that's the footy you want, can follow underage footy if it floats your boat.

The sport needs teams in every capital if it is going to succeed long term. Purists are just going to have to suck it up, just like they did for 1 day cricket.

 

[Colonial]

Expansion does not need more teams, 2nd tier footballers playing at the elite level. Compre?

You can follow the 2nd tier IF that's the footy you want, can follow underage footy if it floats your boat.

But its not 2nd tier footballers. Just because they are not as talented as the sheils of the world doesnt make a player 2nd tier. Your argument that there shouldnt be any s**t footballers doesnt stack up. There isnt a competition in the world that doesnt have its s**t teams and players.


The one sport that believed as you do almost destroyed itself trying to do what you want and still had s**t teams and players. Hello Super League

 

[Slax]

Competitions like the EPL have been uneven for 50 years and still extremely popular. I personally couldn't care if the same 4 teams won every year as long as there is still an AFL. And this is a matter of life or death for the AFL. It cannot survive forever being played in only 3 cities in the world. For AFL to survive long-term, it needs to keep expanding into new markets, both in and outside of Australia.

If the same teams win the AFL every year it will die as the other clubs have nothing to play for and their supporters will go and follow other sports.

In European football there are other trophies, they have the FA Cup, League Cup and European competitions. AFL has nothing expect the premiership trophy, so if you aren't going to win it why bother. For fans of smaller club the chance to win an FA Cup is their premiership in recent years we've seen smaller sides go close, even a couple of non-EPL sides have made the final in the last 15 years (Millwall 2003 & Cardiff 2008). So there is plenty for fans to follow for and then there is the series threat of relegation. If you've never actually been there you will never understand what it means for the fans of the smaller clubs to stay in the top flight, so the last day can be as nerve raking for them as the top sides going for the title. Look back a few years to Man City's first EPL title and before they scored the equaliser look to see if you can catch a glimpse of the QPR bench, they were celebrating because they were staying up because other results went their way, that was their title. The QPR players actually spent time with the City players after the presentation both celebrating equally hard because they both achieved their goal. What will Port do Saturday? a little clap and nothing.

Players will want to go to the elite teams to win it at the expense of the lower sides, knowing that they can have 4-5 years there on less money but win a premiership and then go back to somewhere else for the payday day.

In Australia the FFA Cup is already growing in prestige and is the only competition in this which see the elite play against state clubs in a competitive environment. It draws crowds to see it and the players love it, how many will go to Melbourne v GWS or Brisbane v Bulldogs? Bet it is well down on season averages for the clubs. Hawthorn v Carlton will be small, as will Richmond v North now North are resting players.

 

[deltablues]

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.

These "foundation clubs" - I guess you mean the VFL clubs grandfathered into the AFL a generation ago. Sure, very lucky indeed for the fans of those "foundation" clubs. Otherwise, in an overall AFL context, not so much...

 

[Tuco]

These "foundation clubs" - I guess you mean the VFL clubs grandfathered into the AFL a generation ago. Sure, very lucky indeed for the fans of those "foundation" clubs. Otherwise, in an overall AFL context, not so much...

You don't think expansion, new revenue streams etc was preferable to Melb and Hawthorn merging, North being relocated and 1 or both of of the Dogs or Saints being allowed to die as some of the economic rationalists were demanding throughout the 90's?

 

[jatz14]

There appears to be a general view that, if we have to many clubs, this is because of the expansion clubs. Also that the expansion clubs are an indication the afl only cares about the bottom line. I think the reverse is partly true, to many clubs is a consequence of an unwillingness to make the tough call to trim the clubs in Melbourne.

A decision based on not upsetting the fan.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[deltablues]

You don't think expansion, new revenue streams etc was preferable to Melb and Hawthorn merging, North being relocated and 1 or both of of the Dogs or Saints being allowed to die as some of the economic rationalists were demanding throughout the 90's?

We may be talking at slight cross-purposes here, but my comment was made in the context of the origins of the AFL, which was in effect the VFL re-branded. There were reasons (good and some not so good) for that back then, and it reflected the somewhat unique situation (compared to the NFL, at least) where a national league initially comprised teams from one city/state.

That situation impacted the development of the AFL as a genuine national league (e.g. non-Victorian AFL teams are still often referred to as "interstate" teams - you don't get that in the NFL). And the mindset of the Vic AFL teams being primus inter pares is further illustrated by your comment "being allowed to die" whereby it could be taken to indicate that you see expansion teams merely as vehicles created in order to generate new revenue streams as life support for various struggling VFL > foundation/AFL teams.

If so, then this mindset is the same as it was way back when the VFL morphed into the AFL - not because the VFL wanted to, as I understand the situation, but because it had to find a new business plan.

The point being that had the AFL been formed from a selection of all "foundation" teams - i.e. from some VFL teams (who would predominate due to population, but which would not include all of the old VFL teams) and from some SANFL and WAFL teams, then today's landscape would be different.

Why? Because there would be no question of some of the old VFL-now-AFL teams dying or being relocated etc- they just would not be in the AFL - they never would have been in the AFL - same as the SANFL and WAFL clubs who didn't make the AFL ranks.

Once that structure was in place then sure, grow the AFL and form expansion/franchise teams in non-heartland states as and when. And the rationale then would be expansion for sound business reasons - not to, among other things, preserve legacy VFL>AFL clubs.

So, in that context, to answer your question, I would say that expansion per se is fine - but for the right reasons (of course we can debate what "right reasons" means, if we want to get down into the weeds)

 

[Papa G]

The quasi national league was designed to keep VFL legacy teams alive and kicking. We have not really moved that far away from that and it appears we never will.

 

[Kwality]

The quasi national league was designed to keep VFL legacy teams alive and kicking. We have not really moved that far away from that and it appears we never will.

I'm not so sure that was in the minds of those who got the national comp off the ground in the late 80s - when Elliot & his sidekick McGuire rolled the AFL Commission & Terry O'connor got the sars, survival of the Melbourne clubs became the order of the day.

 

[madmug]

The quasi national league was designed to keep VFL legacy teams alive and kicking. We have not really moved that far away from that and it appears we never will.

Whether Tasmania get a go or not wont change the biggest drag on the AFL. It unbalanced structure. Its very roots put northern states public off side. They see it as a Victorian thing, not a national thing.

By its very operation & attitude, that is what it is.

 

[Ticky009]

I personally preferred West Sydney Serpents with the team being mostly green.

Slytherin Sydney! I would totally follow that team

 

[The Speaker]

The alternative to expansion is the gradual death of the game and being supplanted by soccer. So yes, it is worth it.

Making it a truly national game is the only way that AFL will survive. If that means a slightly uneven competition for a decade or so, then it is still worth it. Uneven competitions exist in every sport.

Only if you think the AFL is the only version of a national competition that can ever exist.