Extra Home Game For WA Teams

[telsor]

Our club is doing fine (maybe check the payments to each of the clubs in the afl report). Or are you talking grassroots?

So the tens of millions the AFL paid to set you up came out of nowhere?

Or how we subsidise you by taking less from TV rights so Ch7 will show your games? (which contributes massively to why sponsors actually give you money).

 

[Scotland]

Which league was broke again?

Which league wasn't?

 

[telsor]

Yep thats as it was, BUT the AFL schedule games these days & clearly I'm suggesting the benefits of playing games in WA & SA exceed the dislocation to club members in Melbourne, given many clubs play away from the old style concept of a home ground, the Hawks being the most successful moving from the olden' days, leaders on & off field. Be honest there are Victorians want to keep anything that favours their clubs, regardless of the good of the game.

What have you ever suggested 'for the good of the game' that would adversely affect WA football and/or favor Vic?

 

[Colonial]

So the tens of millions the AFL paid to set you up came out of nowhere?

Or how we subsidise you by taking less from TV rights so Ch7 will show your games? (which contributes massively to why sponsors actually give you money).

We got 20 mil to start with. 10 of which went to spotless.
Now your just randomly lying. Im done with this

 

[telsor]

Which league wasn't?

VFL.

Clubs might have been, but the league was doing fairly well, especially when the commission was established.

 

[telsor]

We got 20 mil to start with. 10 of which went to spotless.
Now your just randomly lying. Im done with this

You're losing the argument, and thus running away from it. Gotcha.

 

[Scotland]

VFL.

Clubs might have been, but the league was doing fairly well, especially when the commission was established.

Right. A league where half the clubs were bankrupt was doing 'fairly well'.

 

[telsor]

Right. A league where half the clubs were bankrupt was doing 'fairly well'.

The league and the clubs are separate entities.

 

[EmericSwitch]

Which facts are you unclear on?

1980 East Perth applied to join the VFL, gets knocked back.
1981 SANFL approves an join team bid to join the VFL, gets knocked back.
1983 WAFL applies for financial aid to the state government.

Which league was broke again?

http://www.worldofwookie.com/aflbusiness/?page_id=497

1980: Richmond won its last premiership

Which team is mediocre again?

 

[telsor]

1980: Richmond won its last premiership

Which team is mediocre again?

Relevance?

Where did I call teams mediocre?

 

[EmericSwitch]

Relevance?

Where did I call teams mediocre?

I'm not getting sucked into an argument with you. I was merely putting you back in your box after your snide dig at WA football.

 

[telsor]

I'm not getting sucked into an argument with you. I was merely putting you back in your box after your snide dig at WA football.

Snide dig? You mean pointing out facts?

 

[EmericSwitch]

Snide dig? You mean pointing out facts?

As did I. Shalom friend

 

[telsor]

As did I. Shalom friend

Mine were relevant to the discussion though.

 

[speedpeck23]

How far off topic are we going...

I think it's right to ask questions as silly as they sound. But there is no compelling reason offered for an extra home game for WA clubs, you don't fix any perceived imbalance by creating another.

Clubs selling their rights for a home game in SA/WA, can't see it being allowed. You are more likely to lose (travel, give up home ground advantage) and in effect throw the game (or at least, a percentage of them) and that's not on.

It's a lay down mesaire financially for any struggling Victorian club.....play one pre season game there as well and you can effectively set up a second "home" base. West Coast and Freo memberships are virtually SOLD OUT so there will be a few "rebel" WA fans who would get on board. If you are serious about your team really being successful you have to adopt a winning mental attitude wherever you play.

In fact this could well be a model for truly expanding the game in NSW and Qld. Imagine if Collingwood and the AFL decided that the Pies should have a second base in Sydney and sell memberships. (even if they only regularly play 2"away" games there each year.)...they would easily out do most NRL clubs in Sydney and really raise the profile of the AFL in NSW. Imagine if they did it in Brisbane and Gold Coast as well....their membership would probably top 100,000.....throughout Australia.

Please don't tell me playing away is a disadvantage.....Collingwood beat Sydney about 9 times in succession in Sydney until recently... if you are truly a top team...you win anywhere. The underlying issue here is about growing the existing 18 clubs and therefore growing the game. How many times do we have to hear it....there are simply too many clubs cutting each others throat in Victoria....this is a way of expanding the support base of Victorian clubs and growing the game without having to relocate the club.

 

[The_Wookie]

Mate, that is so very un-true. The VFL was broke and needed a cash injection. A meeting was called by John Elliot and held in southern Vic from memory and the expanded VFL idea was floated.

This is incorrect. East Perth applied in 1980, the SANFL applied in 1981. Clubs from both leagues were applying and being told "not interested by the VFL" until 1986.

The meeting held by Elliot and the Vic clubs resulted in the formation of a VFL Commission in 1985, and the eventual formation of the independent AFL Commission in 1993. Part of the Commissions mandate was expansion in WA and SA...when SA refused, Queensland.

About half the VFL clubs were broke, not the league. The league did however need cash to inject into the clubs.

WA & SA should be allocated extra games Wookie.

Why should they? We've been told for years how strong the WA clubs and WA football is are, why should Victorian clubs now make the journey over?

 

[Scotland]

About half the VFL clubs were broke, not the league. The league did however need cash to inject into the clubs.

You should get a job with the AFL. Or in politics.

 

[Colonial]

You're losing the argument, and thus running away from it. Gotcha.

Sprouting random crap is not winning the argument. Your just lying to yourself

 

[The_Wookie]

You should get a job with the AFL. Or in politics.

You should get your facts right before calling out others.

 

[Scotland]

You should get your facts right before calling out others.

When half your clubs are bankrupt your league is not going 'fairly well'. It's a ludicrous argument to suggest that the VFL didn't need money to stay afloat. Trying to separate the league from the clubs is disingenuous.

I'm not pushing the 'you needed us, we saved you' barrow either. The writing was on the wall that footy across the 3 major states was unsustainable the way it was going.

 

[The_Wookie]

When half your clubs are bankrupt your league is not going 'fairly well'. It's a ludicrous argument to suggest that the VFL didn't need money to stay afloat. Trying to separate the league from the clubs is disingenuous.

You're being factually incorrect. The League (HQ) bails out clubs all the time. They are separate entities and always have been. While it can be seen that the fortunes are tied together, in terms of governances they arent. The fact remains that of the three state leagues only the WAFL had to be bailed out.

I'm not pushing the 'you needed us, we saved you' barrow either. The writing was on the wall that footy across the 3 major states was unsustainable the way it was going.

Actually I believe that if Seven had paid what the VFL wanted in 1986 for rights - which they ended up paying in 1987 anyway - then we may not have seen expansion until later. The 8 million from license fees in late 1986 played a part yes, but tv rights made it sustainable (30 million in 1987 for 5 years). BY 1989, the VFL (HQ) had more income than the SANFL and WAFC combined annually.

 

[Scotland]

You're being factually incorrect. The League (HQ) bails out clubs all the time. They are separate entities and always have been. While it can be seen that the fortunes are tied together, in terms of governances they arent. The fact remains that of the three state leagues only the WAFL had to be bailed out.

You can argue the VFL was doing 'fairly well' until you're blue in the face, but the reality is they had to bail out half the clubs - which they needed license fees to do. The VFL had the choice - support half the clubs (via expansion) or let them sort out their own problems and likely fold. Neither point to the competition being as strong and stable as a few think.

Actually I believe that if Seven had paid what the VFL wanted in 1986 for rights - which they ended up paying in 1987 anyway - then we may not have seen expansion until later. The 8 million from license fees in late 1986 played a part yes, but tv rights made it sustainable (30 million in 1987 for 5 years). BY 1989, the VFL (HQ) had more income than the SANFL and WAFC combined annually.

You don't think expansion may have played a part in rising TV rights revenues?

On the one hand you have a (relatively) stable 14 team competition with a presence in 4 states. On the other you have a 12 team competition in Victoria only with half the clubs up financial s**t creek. I know which one sounds like the better investment.

 

[The_Wookie]

You can argue the VFL was doing 'fairly well' until you're blue in the face, but the reality is they had to bail out half the clubs - which they needed license fees to do. The VFL had the choice - support half the clubs (via expansion) or let them sort out their own problems and likely fold. Neither point to the competition being as strong and stable as a few think.

The reality is while license fees helped they werent the be all and end all you are making them out to be.

You don't think expansion may have played a part in rising TV rights revenues?

On the one hand you have a (relatively) stable 14 team competition with a presence in 4 states. On the other you have a 12 team competition in Victoria only with half the clubs up financial s**t creek. I know which one sounds like the better investment.

No. The VFL refused Sevens rights offer in 1986 to the point of selling them to Broadcom, Seven later paid more for the 1986 rights to buy them back and then tabled a large offer in 1987. So no, I dont think it was tied to expansion, although that never hurt.

 

[Kwality]

Snide dig? You mean pointing out facts?

Some are not as concerned with history, some are concerned about going forward - telsor?

 

[Kwality]

This is incorrect. East Perth applied in 1980, the SANFL applied in 1981. Clubs from both leagues were applying and being told "not interested by the VFL" until 1986.

The meeting held by Elliot and the Vic clubs resulted in the formation of a VFL Commission in 1985, and the eventual formation of the independent AFL Commission in 1993. Part of the Commissions mandate was expansion in WA and SA...when SA refused, Queensland.

About half the VFL clubs were broke, not the league. The league did however need cash to inject into the clubs.



Why should they? We've been told for years how strong the WA clubs and WA football is are, why should Victorian clubs now make the journey over?

Is this selection of unrelated quotes a desperate attempt to ... to what. One of the poorest posts you have lodged in a chequered career, any chance your position on history & going forward is clear.