SANFL/WAFL clubs joining AFL

[madmug]

But for the fact that Elliott's plan hatched on the weekend was dead by the Monday, that is the reality of the plausability of the 'Super League'.

Furthermore it is worth remembering that Elliott was breaking away for $$$$ not for the interests of the game, development etc. He though he and the other bid Melbourne clubs could get more cash by dumping the other Vic Clubs ... if you think that is breakaway league would have any interest in subsidising a Tassie team (or any other team) you are kidding yourself.

Clearly on reading this thread, people from Victoria equate 'the good of the game' with keeping as much of the VFL in tact as possible .
Seeing what Packer did for Cricket, I'd argue that the TV moguls would have been all over this & an Elite competition made up of the best clubs would have been a success.
We certainly wouldnt have this ongoing silly situation of many of the 10 clubs continually struggling in one state & only two franchises in WA.
The AFL have been wrestling with this problem since day one.
Unfortunately it is what it is, the problem remains.

 

[telsor]

Clearly on reading this thread, people from Victoria equate 'the good of the game' with keeping as much of the VFL in tact as possible .
Seeing what Packer did for Cricket, I'd argue that the TV moguls would have been all over this & an Elite competition made up of the best clubs would have been a success.
We certainly wouldnt have this ongoing silly situation of many of the 10 clubs continually struggling in one state & only two franchises in WA.
The AFL have been wrestling with this problem since day one.
Unfortunately it is what it is, the problem remains.

Yes, a 'superleague' wouldn't have that problem...They also wouldn't let in any new clubs unless they were clearly going to add $$$ to the other clubs, so at least one NSW club would have died quite quickly (probably both) as the league wouldn't bail them out like the VFL repeatedly did with Sydney. QLD teams would probably never have got started unless it was a Skase-style flash in the pan operation. A couple of WA teams would have got in, and perhaps another Vic club (Hawthorn?) to help with the numbers when the NSW clubs died, but that would have been it (Tas wouldn't got a look in). Of course, no money would have gone to development or grass roots.

Tell me how that is better than what we have now?

You keep talking about the evil Vics, but all the other scenarios you mention would have even less chance of a Tas team.

 

[Rob]

But for the fact that Elliott's plan hatched on the weekend was dead by the Monday, that is the reality of the plausability of the 'Super League'.

Furthermore it is worth remembering that Elliott was breaking away for $$$$ not for the interests of the game, development etc. He though he and the other bid Melbourne clubs could get more cash by dumping the other Vic Clubs ... if you think that is breakaway league would have any interest in subsidising a Tassie team (or any other team) you are kidding yourself.

I'm not sure that's true. According to Oakley, Elliott was a strong advocate of an independent AFL commission, and clubs back then were predominantly member owned. Funnily enough, the one Victorian club that wasn't was North, and they weren't invited.
I reckon it was more about getting his club on the national stage, and probably more publicity for him. It's not like he had any cash in the game himself.

 

[madmug]

Yes, a 'superleague' wouldn't have that problem...They also wouldn't let in any new clubs unless they were clearly going to add $$$ to the other clubs, so at least one NSW club would have died quite quickly (probably both) as the league wouldn't bail them out like the VFL repeatedly did with Sydney. QLD teams would probably never have got started unless it was a Skase-style flash in the pan operation. A couple of WA teams would have got in, and perhaps another Vic club (Hawthorn?) to help with the numbers when the NSW clubs died, but that would have been it (Tas wouldn't got a look in). Of course, no money would have gone to development or grass roots.

Tell me how that is better than what we have now?

You keep talking about the evil Vics, but all the other scenarios you mention would have even less chance of a Tas team.

You do make an awful lot of negative assumptions about something that never even happened Certainly the 'Packer effect' was great for cricket, thats undeniable. The game grew hugely due to the exciting approach & changes to the game & how it was run. Perhaps the same could have occurred for footy? Why not?

Tassie has been frozen out by Victorian footy self interested politics. Even the latest AFL discussion shows they know they have a situation that needs attention. Demetriou was just too arrogant to sort it properly. So if footy was managed by a Packer type, as above, Tassie couldnt be any bloody worse off under such management than how the AFL have done things to date.
So quite obviously Tassie would have NOTHING to lose.
Certainly the status quo has protected some very 'shaky' self interested parties.

 

[telsor]

You do make an awful lot of negative assumptions about something that never even happened Certainly the 'Packer effect' was great for cricket, thats undeniable. The game grew hugely due to the exciting approach & changes to the game & how it was run. Perhaps the same could have occurred for footy? Why not?

Tassie has been frozen out by Victorian footy self interested politics. Even the latest AFL discussion shows they know they have a situation that needs attention. Demetriou was just too arrogant to sort it properly. So if footy was managed by a Packer type, as above, Tassie couldnt be any bloody worse off under such management than how the AFL have done things to date.
So quite obviously Tassie would have NOTHING to lose.
Certainly the status quo has protected some very 'shaky' self interested parties.

Tas has missed out because they didn't fit either of the criteria expansion teams have had.

1) Added to the leagues financial strength (especially tv rights).
2) Expanded the game.

Really, apart from a feel good factor, what would a team in Tas add to the game?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Tas has missed out because they didn't fit either of the criteria expansion teams have had.

1) Added to the leagues financial strength (especially tv rights).
2) Expanded the game.

Really, apart from a feel good factor, what would a team in Tas add to the game?

You do realize your beloved WA3 fails on these two counts as well, but you are in favour of that

 

[The_Reaper]

You do realize your beloved WA3 fails on these two counts as well, but you are in favour of that

Let alone his WA4

 

[Albert Ross]

Clearly on reading this thread, people from Victoria equate 'the good of the game' with keeping as much of the VFL in tact as possible .

Not at all. It is just pragmatism to acknowledge that the existing clubs were not going to vote themselves out of existence. A model that would have required Footscray to raise its hands and voluntarily step out of the highest league in the land was never going to happen.

Seeing what Packer did for Cricket, I'd argue that the TV moguls would have been all over this & an Elite competition made up of the best clubs would have been a success.

But Packer almost sent himself broke, and within 2-years was back dealing with the cricket authorities. After 2 years we had exactly the same teams, tours and product. We did see more 1-day cricket. But all that happened was that Packer achieved what he wanted, the right to broadcast cricket on 9 instead of the rights being given to the ABC for chicken feed every year because that is the way things had already been.

In contrast the VFL was already on a commercial broadcaster who were not interested in paying. So much so that Channel 7 let the rights go to Broadcom/ABC for a year.

We certainly wouldnt have this ongoing silly situation of many of the 10 clubs continually struggling in one state & only two franchises in WA.The AFL have been wrestling with this problem since day one.Unfortunately it is what it is, the problem remains.

And was inevitable. That is what happens when a league expands.

You do make an awful lot of negative assumptions about something that never even happened Certainly the 'Packer effect' was great for cricket, thats undeniable. The game grew hugely due to the exciting approach & changes to the game & how it was run. Perhaps the same could have occurred for footy? Why not?

The Packer effect is debatable. It lasted 2 years. Most of the growth happens when nine and the ACB begin working together.

Tassie has been frozen out by Victorian footy self interested politics. Even the latest AFL discussion shows they know they have a situation that needs attention. Demetriou was just too arrogant to sort it properly. So if footy was managed by a Packer type, as above, Tassie couldnt be any bloody worse off under such management than how the AFL have done things to date.
So quite obviously Tassie would have NOTHING to lose.
Certainly the status quo has protected some very 'shaky' self interested parties.

Tassie has been frozen out of national footy for the same reasons it has been frozen out of national everything-else. Victoria is adding 110k people a year, Tassie is adding 1k. Every 5 years Victoria's population is growing by the same size as the entire Tasmania population.

You don't need a conspiracy theory to see why Tassie doesn't have a team, you need a calculator.

 

[Rob]

In contrast the VFL was already on a commercial broadcaster who were not interested in paying. So much so that Channel 7 let the rights go to Broadcom/ABC for a year.

Big difference was that the VFL had little to no interest outside of Victoria. That structure wasn't capable of generating decent dollars from TV. If someone comes along and sets up a national league then that would have had instant TV interest.

 

[telsor]

You do realize your beloved WA3 fails on these two counts as well, but you are in favour of that

Let alone his WA4

Somewhat true (extra WA team would expand access to the game), but in that comment I was explaining rationale for past expansion. Adding WA3/4 & Tas is the way forward, and clearly if we're to expand we need to move beyond the previous paradigm.

 

[Albert Ross]

Big difference was that the VFL had little to no interest outside of Victoria. That structure wasn't capable of generating decent dollars from TV. If someone comes along and sets up a national league then that would have had instant TV interest.

Not necessarily, and at the time we didn't have genuine national broadcasters to come to the party. Imagining that a TV-driven expansion could work is retro-fitting the current model to 1980. You still have state government rules against live broadcasts remember.

In 1987 the salary cap in the VFL is $1.25m but the Broadcast deal is only $5m a year. So 3 caps worth. We now have a $250m a year TV deal with 9m salary cap; 27 caps worth. The massive growth in TV rights is not something that administrators at the time could have imagined.

Back then they got their money from the gate and state admins around the country were worried that a national league would mean games (like we have today) with half empty stadiums because no 'away' fans take up the tickets when you play GWS, GC etc.

The model of a TV-driven sporting comp doesn't really kick in until 1992 and SKy Sports taking rights off FTA TV and prompting the English league to break away from their Association; and the ARL v Superleague war in 1993-95.

The plans to expand the VFL/AFL were basically 10 year to early for the media-driven, TV-rights driven model. And even in that model you don't see QLD getting fair representation.

 

[Rob]

Not necessarily, and at the time we didn't have genuine national broadcasters to come to the party. Imagining that a TV-driven expansion could work is retro-fitting the current model to 1980. You still have state government rules against live broadcasts remember.

In 1987 the salary cap in the VFL is $1.25m but the Broadcast deal is only $5m a year. So 3 caps worth. We now have a $250m a year TV deal with 9m salary cap; 27 caps worth. The massive growth in TV rights is not something that administrators at the time could have imagined.

Back then they got their money from the gate and state admins around the country were worried that a national league would mean games (like we have today) with half empty stadiums because no 'away' fans take up the tickets when you play GWS, GC etc.

The model of a TV-driven sporting comp doesn't really kick in until 1992 and SKy Sports taking rights off FTA TV and prompting the English league to break away from their Association; and the ARL v Superleague war in 1993-95.

The plans to expand the VFL/AFL were basically 10 year to early for the media-driven, TV-rights driven model. And even in that model you don't see QLD getting fair representation.

Oh, i'm not suggesting that TV would have been a driver for it, nor would it have been a TV bonanza. But there would have been a lot more TV interest in a national league than the state based regional leagues that existed at the time. I'm sure it would have been discussed as a potential revenue source.

 

[The_Wookie]

Oh, i'm not suggesting that TV would have been a driver for it, nor would it have been a TV bonanza. But there would have been a lot more TV interest in a national league than the state based regional leagues that existed at the time. I'm sure it would have been discussed as a potential revenue source.

Seven didnt see it that way in 87 when the rights came up despite 3 non victorian sides (including Sydney, Brisbane and West Coast). They changed their mind pretty quick when ratings plummeted. Its also worth noting that in 1989, the VFL was making 30 million a year - the WAFL and SANFL combined were pulling 12 million.

For those wondering around that time -

• 1985 – Ch7 pay 3.5 million for 1986 tv rights
  
• 1986 – Ch7 offer 2.7 million for 1987 season, offer rejected by the VFL
• 1986 – Broadcoms offer is accepted after exceeding the 1985 amount, rights onsold to ABC for 1.5 million
• 1986 – Ch7 rating plummet, offers broadcom 9 million to win rights back
• 1987 – Ch7 pays $6 million a year ($30 million) for 5 years from 1988 – 1992
• 1992 – Ch7 pays $17 million a year for 1993 – 1998 (100 million)
• 1998 – Ch7 Pays $40 million a year for rights to 2001
• 2001 – Fox, Ch9 and Ch10 pays $500 million for rights for 5 years from 2002-2006, Radio nets the AFl 2 million

References

• Timeline of VFL/AFL Broadcast rights
  
• A National Game
• The Economic Development of the VFL 1960-1984
• Sport Funding and Finance

 

[feenix67]

Tas has missed out because they didn't fit either of the criteria expansion teams have had.

1) Added to the leagues financial strength (especially tv rights).
2) Expanded the game.

Really, apart from a feel good factor, what would a team in Tas add to the game?

credibility

 

[telsor]

credibility

The AFL isn't credible now?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

The AFL isn't credible now?

I think its the notion of calling yourself a national league and ignoring one of the key footy heartland states

 

[telsor]

I think its the notion of calling yourself a national league and ignoring one of the key footy heartland states

a) They're not ignored.
b) You'd think a state worthy of being called 'key footy heartland' would produce enough players for even 1 team.

I agree they should be next on the expansion list, but as I said, it's feelgood factor, not a move driven by overwhelming demand.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

a) They're not ignored.
b) You'd think a state worthy of being called 'key footy heartland' would produce enough players for even 1 team.

I agree they should be next on the expansion list, but as I said, it's feelgood factor, not a move driven by overwhelming demand.

1) getting sloppy seconds is being ignored

2) they do, but they dont have access to a team

 

[telsor]

1) getting sloppy seconds is being ignored

2) they do, but they dont have access to a team

1) No, it's getting sloppy seconds.

2) OK, correction, there aren't enough Tas players in the AFL for a full squad, they probably could field a team (given a decent run of injuries) but it is unlikely to be competitive. A quick check found a 2012 'top 10 Tasmanians' list...There are some good players, but when Sam Lonergan is one of two deemed 'unlucky to miss' in a year his team delisted him there is clearly issues with depth.

edited to add...
Found a BF post from 4 years back...Looks like it was 28 players then. Would you want this as your entire squad?

Following on from a thread I started on the AFL board in 2007 (http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=325006) I thought it was time to have another look at the best of the Tasmanian crop currently playing in the AFL. I decided to start the thread on the TSL board instead this time though, as it is supposedly the pathway for our young players and will show just how successful our local product has been.

Here is my suggested team below. Feel free to comment and we can try and come up with an ultimate team together.

B: A. Joseph, N. Grima, M. Davies
HB: J. Webberley, C. Garland, G. Birchall
C: M. Robinson, J. Sherman, T. Collier
HF: B. Green, S. Wiggins, B. Moles
F: A. Cornelius, J. Riewoldt, T. Hislop
R: A. Graham, B. Rawlings, S. Lonergan

I: S. Taylor, T. Bellchambers, R. Harwood, J. Crichton

Others not included (hopefully I have them all covered): B. McCulloch, T. Allwright, J. Laycock, L. Jones, L. Russel (GC), M.Weller (GC)


P.S. Unlike last time around, I have decided to not include players such as Nick Riewoldt, instead choosing players who played the majority of their junior footy in Tas or were drafted from Tas.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

1) No, it's getting sloppy seconds.

2) OK, correction, there aren't enough Tas players in the AFL for a full squad, they probably could field a team (given a decent run of injuries) but it is unlikely to be competitive. A quick check found a 2012 'top 10 Tasmanians' list...There are some good players, but when Sam Lonergan is one of two deemed 'unlucky to miss' in a year his team delisted him there is clearly issues with depth.

1) they are getting crappy games that home fans cant be fluffed paying to see, thats sloppy seconds

2) so now you raise the bar higher again. You are aware when there was SoA Tassie did fields teams, and it actually did - shock horror - win from time to time

Your hate of all things Tassie is pretty obvious, just own it dude

 

[telsor]

1) they are getting crappy games that home fans cant be fluffed paying to see, thats sloppy seconds

2) so now you raise the bar higher again. You are aware when there was SoA Tassie did fields teams, and it actually did - shock horror - win from time to time

Your hate of all things Tassie is pretty obvious, just own it dude

I don't hate Tassie, I just don't overrate them.

1) So? I said it was sloppy seconds. I said they weren't being ignored.

2) I admitted my error (writing team when I meant squad), but really if you want to go down that road, while they have enough players to run on the ground, they couldn't produce a team that would get above the lower reaches of the ladder (see the edit/addition to my post above from 2010).

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I don't hate Tassie, I just don't overrate them.

1) So? I said it was sloppy seconds. I said they weren't being ignored.

2) I admitted my error (writing team when I meant squad), but really if you want to go down that road, while they have enough players to run on the ground, they couldn't produce a team that would get above the lower reaches of the ladder (see the edit/addition to my post above from 2010).

1) sry misread

2) they will get mainlanders playing too. The Crows is not just a team of SA people

 

[telsor]

1) sry misread

2) they will get mainlanders playing too. The Crows is not just a team of SA people

2) Absolutely, all teams can and do get players from everywhere. My comment was with regard to them being a "key footy heartland" state and my point was that they can't be especially key if they don't even produce 1/18th of the players.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

2) Absolutely, all teams can and do get players from everywhere. My comment was with regard to them being a "key footy heartland" state and my point was that they can't be especially key if they don't even produce 1/18th of the players.

So whats the benchmark then for you accepting them?

FWIW you seem to have lots of KPIs you think Tassie fails on, but you never say what the lines in the sand are for these

 

[telsor]

So whats the benchmark then for you accepting them?

FWIW you seem to have lots of KPIs you think Tassie fails on, but you never say what the lines in the sand are for these

I think Tas should have a team.

My comments relate to 2 things.
1) Why they don't have one already (there were better options)
2) Why dropping a Vic club because it's not viable to make a spot for a Tas club doesn't make sense (Tas club ~= Small Vic club, so if the Vic club isn't viable, Tas probably wouldn't be either)