OK ... another case of denial (put simply, it happened), a disinterest in reality that disagrees with your agenda - did you accuse PapaG of hypocrisy?
Why do you chose to add puffery, see above, aka p155 & wind !!
The WAFL, SANFL and VFL clubs in the National competion
- Thread starter The_Reaper
- Start date
- Tagged users None
OK ... another case of denial (put simply, it happened), a disinterest in reality that disagrees with your agenda - did you accuse PapaG of hypocrisy?
Why do you chose to add puffery, see above, aka p155 & wind !!
Of course they could have - the games best interests were addressed in the Fitzroy example, when the VFL flicked South to Sydney it was about the game (yes/no, ho ho!), what is special about North? Try nothing !!
- Moderator
- #353
Media reports are never proof of anything. have we learnt nothing over the years.
South WANTED to go to Sydney. Fitzroys members and the board werent in control of the club and the AFl went behind the clubs back ignoring everyones wishes at the time in accordance with corporate law - something that did not apply in the north case.
Welcome to another thread ban.
- Moderator
- #354
The VFL did not flick South to Sydney. They did not have the power to do so. Going to Sydney was South Melborne's choice. At one point Fitzroy was going to Sydney as the "Sydney Lions" but the Fitzroy members voted against it and that was the end of the story.
- Moderator
- #355
Unless it owns the club, the AFL cannot force clubs to relocate. Despite the popular preception that a "merger' happened, the AFL couldn't even force Fitzroy Football Club to merge.
All the AFL could do was force Fitzroy, through the connivance of an administrator, to relinquish Fitzroy's AFL licence. Having accomplished that, then the AFL could move a small part of Fitzroy AFL operations (after all Fitzroy wouldn't need that anymore having no licence to compete in the AFL) to the Bears, in return for a Bears re-branding as the Lions.
I think the AFL came about in its current form via a series of responses to events at the time. There was no great plan (or conspiracy) by the VFL, or anyone else in the 80s. No one in the late 80s would have envisioned the comp we have now. Had it been planned, what we would have ended up with may well have been worse.
I see big problems with a national comp that included established WAFL and SANFL. People have suggested that from WA, Swans and Souths could have taken part, but as a Falcon supporter, I hate both of them, almost as much as I hate Claremont, but a little more than I hate East Freo or Perth. Many fans of the WAFL would have a similar response. Why would people, many of whom had a favourite team in the VFL support a local club they hated.
Also, if the powers that be in the WAFL wanted to try to keep as much of the support of the WAFL as they could, why would they let the biggest clubs walk out of the comp. It was never going to happen.
As a speculative suggestion, had they bought in an outsider, to design a national comp from scratch without regard to existing sensibilities then we may have ended up with something that looked quite different. However it is not enough that the league makes sense, and is fair and logical, it has to be implementable, and nothing but a VFL based national comp could be.
VFL based, expanding to the stronger footy states, then expanding to the larger non footy population centres was always going to be the rough evolutionary path
Given that it is VFL based, then VFL based presumptions and prejudices will hold sway, at least until a true national league ethos evolves (and we are a long way from there yet).
I see big problems with a national comp that included established WAFL and SANFL. People have suggested that from WA, Swans and Souths could have taken part, but as a Falcon supporter, I hate both of them, almost as much as I hate Claremont, but a little more than I hate East Freo or Perth. Many fans of the WAFL would have a similar response. Why would people, many of whom had a favourite team in the VFL support a local club they hated.
Also, if the powers that be in the WAFL wanted to try to keep as much of the support of the WAFL as they could, why would they let the biggest clubs walk out of the comp. It was never going to happen.
As a speculative suggestion, had they bought in an outsider, to design a national comp from scratch without regard to existing sensibilities then we may have ended up with something that looked quite different. However it is not enough that the league makes sense, and is fair and logical, it has to be implementable, and nothing but a VFL based national comp could be.
VFL based, expanding to the stronger footy states, then expanding to the larger non footy population centres was always going to be the rough evolutionary path
Given that it is VFL based, then VFL based presumptions and prejudices will hold sway, at least until a true national league ethos evolves (and we are a long way from there yet).
You can't see any problems because if it had happened that way then you would know no different. It didn't so you are comparing WAFL clubs today with what you now see in the AFL.
The AFL was not formed out of the best clubs in Australia, it was morphed out of the VFL and became the AFL. How lucky are those supporters of Clubs like North, Bulldogs, saints, melbourne etc that they got a free ride as a national club without having to lift a finger.
History of course now but it should of been vastly different.
How anyone could come up with a competition to start a national comp and not want the best clubs in the country to be in it is beyond me. But that was the foresight of the then VFL.
Thats the point, they were not showing foresite, they were dealing with the issues at hand. They did what was doable. As a matter of opinion, I see no scenario where the strongest WAFL teams join the VFL and succeed. I do not see them being allowed by the WAFL to do it, I do not see them dragging enough support from other WA clubs to be strong. If Swans and Souths were in the AFL, I would be a bombers supporter. I think many Eagles fans would say something similar.
Games best interests?
I reckon everybody's interests would have been served best by a North - Fitzroy merger. And they were willing. The AFL scuttled it thru underhanded tactics so they could prop up Brisbane, who they could have propped up anyway.
South went to Sydney of their own accord.
Not sure how many times it needs to be said - the AFL has no power to force a member owned and operated club to merge or relocate. And nor should they.
No doubt the VFL got what they wanted... but I don't think there's much accountability in purely blaming the VFL
- the WAFC and SANFL didn't oppose - in fact they actively took part and own the clubs in question
- WAFL and SANFL clubs didn't oppose - did they not have any power to influence or veto their league executives from getting involved in the VFL??
- supporters didn't oppose - they joined the Eagles and Crows in droves
WAFL and SANFL clubs may have worked, it may not have. I actually would have preferred it, but that's not the point.
I think just blaming the big bad VFL is a real stretch. Who actually opposed the expansion in the football world? Anybody?
As I said, and happy to be corrected - the VFL certainly didn't have the resources to launch their own clubs in hostile territory. Not sure they had anybody over a barrel.
Albert Ross
Premiership Player
I think this is the bit that gets lost with the passion of the argument. Many people see the AFL as it is now and it was similar in the past. The VFL of the mid-80s was not the massive all-powerful dispassionate bureaucracy of today.
They don't remember the Cain government intervening to legislate the Grand Final to be at the MCG in exchange for putting money into it. They don't remember the Auditor General threatening to take over the running of the league. They don't remember that in '86 lights at the MCG were a novelty and night football was new.
They don't remember the battles to bring in the Commision, the draft, the salary cap, axe transfer fees, remove zones, scrap under-19s teams, move teams off their suburban grounds etc.
They don't recall restriction on Sunday trading and broadcasts. They don't recall that the Swans to Sydney was to allow Sunday games and TV. They don't recall that TV deals were actually new - that the AFL was still in its infancy for live coverage.
They don't remember how much the VFL clubs hated each other and how often they took each other to court, or threatened to.
They imagine things could have continued on as they always had done. But the WAFL/SANFL clubs could see the writing on the wall. Friday night footy and VFL broadcasts were going to take off and make bucket loads of cash for the VFL. Ground rationalisation was going to lead to better facilites, bigger crowds, higher ticket prices and more cash. The VFL was going to use it's cash to buy players - they had only recently removed the rule that only allowed VFL clubs to sign 2 interstate players per year. With that restriction gone the WA and SA leagues were facing a battle to keep players.
Not blaming the VFL mate at all, in fact full credit to them for looking after their own backyard. Something the WAFL and SANFL did not do. It is amazing to think that the SANFL and WAFL must of known they were signing the death warrant for their clubs by joining the VFL. Financially did they have much choice I am not sure, I don't know the financial situation of the leagues back then. They certainly were losing more and more players to the VFL than ever before.
I am not sure exactly how it happened, I do not know if the WAFL clubs voted for it or not? Remember that a private consortium originally owned the Eagles and it was them that entered into the VFL not the WAFC or WAFL.
But surely they must of known they were consigning their own great clubs to second tier status forever. It makes you wonder that at the time maybe the WAFL clubs may have thought the Eagles won't take off?
Anyway we are here now, the vast majority think its all awesome. I don't but I am in the minority and have to wear it.
An AFL was always the way to making the game professional & national. Its just that some very good clubs in WA & SA were effectively wasted. So much time & effort in keeping poor clubs up & running & starting brand new franchises could have been saved if the best of the best were included.
It is what it is.
An AFL was always the way to making the game professional & national. Its just that some very good clubs in WA & SA were effectively wasted. So much time & effort in keeping poor clubs up & running & starting brand new franchises could have been saved if the best of the best were included.
It is what it is.
Its staggering to think that at no point the 3 big Leagues VFL/SANFL/WAFL never ever got together and discussed forming a national comp. Maybe they did?
Like I said I am in the minority but a national comp could of been done much better.
But the VFL took the risk and extended their comp and this morphed into what we now call a national comp.
The people who ran the WAFL and SANFL back then surely must of known what would happen to their comps. Yet they stood their and did nothing to protect their own great clubs.
But like you said. It is what it is.
Albert Ross
Premiership Player
When conversations happened initially the Vics didn't want it. They didn't want the travel, they didn't see the WAFL/SANFL clubs as being assets (with the exception of Port). They saw them being part burden and part competition.
Later the SANFL and WAFL wanted to protect their own comps. When Port tried to leave the other SANFL clubs voted it down. The model we had of 1 WA team was at WA's insistence. They would own the club and use its profits to subsidise their local league.
As for the WAFL/SANFL ... well something that probably isn't being mentioned is that there was about zero chance of a Brisbane side under any other model. The only way there was going to be a Brisbane team was if the league paid for them - and a WAFL/SANFL/VFL would not have done that.
The problem I guess would have been that the SANFL/WAFL's role was to benefit all clubs in their league. So their obligations to say South Adelaide or Woodville (weak clubs) would have been the same as it was to Norwood and Port. I guess it wouldn't have washed for them to say off you go Norwood and Port, the rest of you stay behind in this now weakened league with your best clubs gone onto bigger and better things. They get all the cash and glory and you guys get s**t. It's kind of the way it ended up any rate, but I doubt the SANFL/WAFL could have facilitated it. In the same way the VFL I guess couldn't have just demoted their historically poor clubs, it ended up one in all in. So the crap VFL teams were dragged up whilst the top WAFL/SANFL teams were pushed down.
- Moderator
- #367
Thats what the NFL was for. they ran the Champions of Australia stuff and the Origin carnivals. The NFL ran a study in 1985 that recommended clubs join the VFL, but the VFL didnt want a bar of it at the time.
I'm not so sure about that last point. I think the way of progress would have seen that type of club based AFL look to expand into the great 'unwashed' Northern parts of the country. Just like the AFL is doing now.
Its the footy equivalent of the white man's burden.
It is however, in terms of pure practicalities, hard to see how a combined model could have gotten up.
Aren't all leagues basically beholden to their clubs' wishes (they elect the executive, basically)?
How could the WAFL and SANFL ever have sold to them a model where the majority of them were effectively relegated?
How could the VFL have done that also? The clubs (other than those invited, who were a minority anyway) would have scuttled it, no?
Aren't all leagues basically beholden to their clubs' wishes (they elect the executive, basically)?
How could the WAFL and SANFL ever have sold to them a model where the majority of them were effectively relegated?
How could the VFL have done that also? The clubs (other than those invited, who were a minority anyway) would have scuttled it, no?
I probably needed a Kerry Packer approach. Football administrators were/are generally self interested empire builders & never likely to progress the game. The old ANFC might have been the body to progress the AFL concept but were rubbed out.
As it was, they were all 'relegated' anyway. At least their states got teams in the national league.
I guess it depends on the model, if the model had of been 2 divisions with promotion and relegation. Both divisions fully broadcast, similar salary caps, etc etc it could of been ok.
Because of what we have now it is impossible to see how it could of worked but if that path had of been taken we would know no different and we would of embraced it as we have the existing set up.
How the divisions would of been chosen well that is a hard one, but like anything there would of been a way. Everyone would of been able to support their club they grew up supporting and loved instead of having to find a new club.
Would there of been enough money? Again who knows because we would know no different if this path had of been taken.
I think this was the best path to take for the good of the game nationally. I understand many will differ in that opinion because they can't see past what we have now.
Anyway there just comments and hypotheticals and we have what we have good or bad.
A 2 division comp, with promotion & relegation would not have survived.
The broadcast dollars around in the '80s (prior to the sell off to Broadcom/Powerplay) were miniscule & there would have been little incentive to provide coverage of games played in 2nd Division , which ultimately would have made it nigh on impossible for 2nd Division clubs to attract sponsorship or other sources of revenue, making it very hard to retain/attract quality players, resulting in an extended period languishing in 2nd Division, further limiting revenue sources (the VFA model of the '60s to '80s is a perfect example of why it doesn't work). It becomes a very vicious circle.
Even now with the broader coverage of games through the broadcast agreement with Channel 7 & Fox Footy, there would be no viable financial benefit to be gained by either broadcaster from telecasting games in a 2nd Division containing clubs who do not have the quality players of 1st Division clubs, nor the support base of these clubs because you can rest assured, upon relegation, a team's membership numbers would nosedive, as would their attendances.
I don't disagree with your conclusion, but the broadcast dollars were insignificant because the product was rubbish. Regional state leagues with very little reach outside of 1 state were not attractive to national TV networks. Cricket was making a bit from TV in the 80's, and i've got no doubt a genuine national football competition would have been in demand from TV, albeit on a much, much lower scale than what it is now.
In terms of cash, it was still nothing in the scheme of things.
Similar threads
- Poll
