- Moderator
- #126
Um whats that now?
Expansion If the AFL expanded, where would the next team/s be?
- Thread starter Fizzler
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Um whats that now?
telsor
Hall of Famer
Has any of that got a thing to do with football?
Except - as pragmatist you'll see no logic behind splitting up a highly profitable net contributing club and replacing it with weaker clubs, with no added profit to the league, no added fanbase, no added tv ratings and lost interest of fans.
That makes no sense beyond you having a cry about how some people don't like the smaller Victorian clubs
- Banned
- #129
Have you actually played football?
- Banned
- #130
Look up how your started.
telsor
Hall of Famer
None of these seem to worry those wanting to drop Vic clubs...
telsor
Hall of Famer
I'm Victorian.
- Moderator
- #133
No no, I want to hear this from one who knows first. Im fascinated.
- Banned
- #134
Look your club doesn't wear red white purple and green anymore.Your club started with a skeleton crew of xpat Western Australians, at least 12 players from Essendon. There were 6 or so other items Essendon gave Fremantle to start, the assistant coach, a development coach, a bucket load of cash, two or three sponsors and an injection of support staff/ inclusions. Its not much to brag about however Fremantle football club could not have formed unless it received help from a different AFL club away from the Eagles. And south Fremantle/ East Fremantle could not break a side on their own.
- Banned
- #135
Be fascinated if you want its moreso written in Essendon history than Fremantle history, it was in wikipedia and the club website but well Fremantle throw their tradition away.
- Banned
- #136
Nice then you know how cold it can get down there and how much of a good time it is to watch games up here Qld
- Banned
- #137
Alright have China as an expansion club. Call them the Hong Kong Fooys. Kit red bandana Maroon and yellow.
telsor
Hall of Famer
Never been to QLD, let alone played there.
That it's 'nice to play there' however doesn't mean anything with respect to a club actually being viable.
Both Brisbane and GC are financially stuffed, and while the hope is that one day they'll stand on their own, currently they make even the 'poor vic clubs' look like financial power houses. Why on earth would the AFL add a third club to divide the limited support base even further?
deltablues
Cancelled
- Jul 16, 2013
- 1,891
- 1,950
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Sturt, Green Bay Packers
Please. Enough with the facile sophistry. Your response to sherb's bolded statement was a deflection by way of engaging in a hypothetical re the NT and seeking to characterize that as a question. In the overall context it was you who did not "answer the question".
But I give you an "A" for consistency re your line of argument against a Tas team - in this and other threads on the topic.
telsor
Hall of Famer
No, I was following through with the suggestion that Tasmania NEEDED to have a team, because a state without one meant it wasn't a truly national comp. My position was pretty clear....Every state doesn't need a team for it to qualify as a national competition, so that argument for a team there is specious.
I note you're not answering the question either. Why do you think a national competition requires a team in every state?
From memory, we got 3 players from Essendon. Delaney, Ridley and Dale Kickett. Neither were gifts, they were all ex WA players. Ridley was an uncontracted player on which Essendon got a 16 year old compo selection (a bit like the mini draft) where they picked up Lloyd. I think the other 2 were traded for a high draft pick which netted them Lucas.
Not sure there were any coaches from Essendon. News to me that we got any gifts from them. Both clubs tried to start up a 'tradition' as such with the Thurgood trophy, but it only lasted about 3 years and I haven't heard anything since.
Funny how he thinks your club is Freo though. I'm guessing he's not a regular on this board.......
telsor
Hall of Famer
I imagine it was in no small part because they were trying to get a set of colours that were different from existing clubs.
The story goes that they mixed red and blue - the 2 colours of South and East Fremantle respectively.
Actually stems from the colour of the workwear in the Dockers at the harbour back in the day. Not exactly the same colour purple now.
deltablues
Cancelled
- Jul 16, 2013
- 1,891
- 1,950
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Sturt, Green Bay Packers
There is no question for me to answer. My comment was made, as you well know, in the context of your consistent anti-Tas team line of argument (despite you professing to be pro-Tas as long as it is not at the expense of a Vic AFL club). In this regard I await your leveraging of Lord Howe Island in the possible event that this territory may become a state.
I dont think
Placements of teams is best done on a regional basis. What area is best able to support a team, rather than an area that is a political region, ie State, Territory, or Suburb. My comments regarding a 'Tasmanian' team is based on the fact that it is a distinct area that can support a team. Same as GC is a distinct area, or Geelong. Melbourne or Perth can & do support multiple teams.
The process of 'expansion' is floored in that the criteria for what a new team needs was met by the original AFL criteria as applied to GWS & GC. However Tasmania had that covered & was ignored. Then this year, McLachlan said Tasmania deserved a team. He then made the totally biased & ignorant claim that we couldnt support a team. The State Premier, Economists & the original application dispelled that.
So when asking where an expansion team might go, the question should be, what are the criteria involved to make such a selection? Also what standards are applied to the current teams as to their long term ability to compete in an efficacious way.
In this regard, AFL's decision making appears ad hoc & biased towards the historic development of football in Victoria. Thats a sloppy way to run a professional organisation.
Placements of teams is best done on a regional basis. What area is best able to support a team, rather than an area that is a political region, ie State, Territory, or Suburb. My comments regarding a 'Tasmanian' team is based on the fact that it is a distinct area that can support a team. Same as GC is a distinct area, or Geelong. Melbourne or Perth can & do support multiple teams.
The process of 'expansion' is floored in that the criteria for what a new team needs was met by the original AFL criteria as applied to GWS & GC. However Tasmania had that covered & was ignored. Then this year, McLachlan said Tasmania deserved a team. He then made the totally biased & ignorant claim that we couldnt support a team. The State Premier, Economists & the original application dispelled that.
So when asking where an expansion team might go, the question should be, what are the criteria involved to make such a selection? Also what standards are applied to the current teams as to their long term ability to compete in an efficacious way.
In this regard, AFL's decision making appears ad hoc & biased towards the historic development of football in Victoria. Thats a sloppy way to run a professional organisation.
telsor
Hall of Famer
So you agree with me that just because an area is a 'state' and therefore needs to be in the competition for it to be 'national' is not valid.
The arguments for Tasmania and GC/GWS are very different.
Tasmania (as with WA & SA) is about providing games to areas that already support the game.
GC/GWS are all about the long term growth of the game.
I completely agree that Tasmania is far more financially viable than either GC or GWS in the near to middle term, but at the same time, a Tas team is far less likely to bring new fans to the game, and that was clearly the criteria the AFL was looking at when it set up those teams. You can argue about if that was the right thing to do, but to suggest that they were the same just doesn't hold up.
You'd also need to look at the cost of removing teams...A number of the fans of that team would be lost forever, is the adjustment worth that? As I've said before, the replacement would have to be clearly and significantly better (not just for itself, but for the league/other clubs as well).
I'd also point out that adding and removing clubs is up to the existing clubs...It's one of the few powers that haven't been handed over to the Commission. It would be a very difficult thing to get criteria approved by which the clubs would effectively vote themselves out of existence.
- Moderator
- #150
Planning can be tracked back to 1997 after the Swans grand final appearance in 1996. Seriously, go and read the annual reports dealing with a second NSW team and game growth in NSW, and after 2003, in Qld as well. It was obvious to all and sundry that teams were going to go there next. When they announced in 2006-7 that GWS and Gold Coast were going up - it was 10 years in the planning. Hardly ad hoc.
Edits for the sake of accuracy -. The AFL appointed a task force in 1997 to look into footy in NSW/ACT with a view to 20-30 years ahead. They reported back in 1998. The 1998 report is the one that mentions a second Sydney side for the first time. The NSW/ACT Commission was appointed the same year.
The AFL appointed a task force to look into footy in Queensland in 1998.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
