The Cut the Teams/Too Many Teams in Victoria thread

[telsor]

The thing is though they have grown since their lowest point in the mid-2000s, and there is still scope for further growth so long as Victoria's population keeps growing. The club will have get a bit creative to ensure that this growth continues, but the precedent is there (e.g. Friday night pioneers) and they have shown that they are prepared to move some games outside of Melbourne to help this.

My point with those crowd figures is that they show that they can be viable. I will concede that these are from their most successful years, but I brought those up in response to you saying that even when they were a good team they still couldn't draw a crowd. The 90s proves that they can.

I will say this again, North does not have to be comparable to Collingwood or Essendon to warrant their place in the competition.

Indeed, North wouldn't be the 'most likely' to be chopped any more....St Kilda & Melbourne would be ahead of them, and considering the past few years (St Kilda is effectively bankrupt, and Melbourne was bailed out), that these clubs still exist shows the AFL isn't going to let clubs die.

 

[gopies1981]

The AFL will never move Melbourne from the mcg. Melbourne fc share very close links to the mcc plus it will kill Melbourne moving to Etihad. You do realise that Melbourne have 19,000 mcc members??

Melbourne just need to start winning games and they will be fine.

 

[deltablues]

Tasmania is already an established football market, so the AFL doesn't have to do much to promote it. Would they prefer to be insulted by Hawthorn and NM multiple times a year, and still turn out to watch them, or actually have a team that reads "Tasmania"? Also, the Tasmanian government will be 100% behind a relocation, it'll be a guaranteed success.

Indeed it is established and the AFL would have to do nada to promote it.

Why should Tas fans have some mainland economic refugee team foisted on them by the AFL? Relocate the the problem Melb metro team or teams to a non-heartland state instead. Hawthorn and North Melbourne are not Tas teams and never will be - the current FIFO arrangement is nothing more than a symbiotic relationship (and no criticism of Hawthorn and NM for that, I should add).

Demetriou was quoted as saying that there will never be a Tas team in the AFL while he was in charge. He's gone. Time now for Tas to make a case for a genuine Tas team - the Devils. Obviously it is going to have to be subsidized for a while - like many other AFL teams are.

 

[madmug]

Indeed it is established and the AFL would have to do nada to promote it.

Why should Tas fans have some mainland economic refugee team foisted on them by the AFL? Relocate the the problem Melb metro team or teams to a non-heartland state instead. Hawthorn and North Melbourne are not Tas teams and never will be - the current FIFO arrangement is nothing more than a symbiotic relationship (and no criticism of Hawthorn and NM for that, I should add).

Demetriou was quoted as saying that there will never be a Tas team in the AFL while he was in charge. He's gone. Time now for Tas to make a case for a genuine Tas team - the Devils. Obviously it is going to have to be subsidized for a while - like many other AFL teams are.

Thankfully the D slug has gone.

Unlike GWS, I'm not so sure 'it' will need much, if any, financial subsidisation. It would certainly need the right personnel recruited & appointed by the AFL. It would obviously need priority draft picks. It would also need some additions to the two grounds, but that should be done by the State Gument as the owner. Otherwise I think it should be a fairly straight forward 'creation'.

 

[Roylion]

Over the period between 1989 and 1996, Fitzroy, through poor decisions made from either ill conceived processes or bad governance

Such as?

fell from being a struggling club which could have hung on until the 21st century and been part of the AFL (which represents all clubs including Victorian clubs), to a club with floundering membership, poor financial returns, little future prospects and decreasing on field performance.

Fitzroy's prospects, had they been supported by the AFL to remain in the competition were in fact reasonable. Their plan to return to the Brunswick Street Oval to use as their permanent training venue had been approved by the then Fitzroy council. They had a functioning and profitable social club where there administrative base was in Northcote, just up the road from Brunswick Street. Their total debt was 2.7 million, an amount that was very manageable according to Greg Swann who worked on the Fitzroy books in 1996.

Thus a 'dead weight' in 1996 whose only chance of survival was to be a very much junior partner in a merge. You made the point in another thread Fitzroy had a 10 win 10 loss record in 1993. What you failed to mention was their record of 8 wins from 66 games in their last three seasons including a 1-21 record in 1996 with its only victory against the 2nd season Fremantle. A record which is worse than any of the current AFL clubs in the past 3 seasons.

Yeah..and? Yes, Fitzroy's on-field record was poor, particularly in 1995 and 1996. Why wouldn't it be when you have the Club's best players moving to other clubs via a steady exodus? The AFL facilitated Alistair Lynch's move to Brisbane at the end of 1993 and were advising Lynch's manager on how it could be best done. Lynch has said that the main reason he moved from Fitzroy was because Fitzroy had moved home grounds to the Western Oval. The reason that was done was because Carlton were screwing over their tenants (Fitzroy and Hawthorn) in terms of the revenue they could generate from home games, because the AFL had guaranteed a certain amount of home games at the ground, irrespective of who played there.

It is not contradictory to say Fitzroy could have survived if it had performed adequately over a period of time. By 1996, it was deadweight in the AFL (which represents all clubs including the then 11 Victorian based clubs) and the merger resulted in the rescinding of its AFL licence.

Just to repeat it yet again. There was no merger...whatever the AFL chooses to call it. Fitzroy was taken over by administrator (an act engineered by the AFL) and the AFL then removed Fitzroy from the competition by getting the administrator to surrender the licence. Why the administrator took over was because Nauru wanted its $1.25 million loan back straight away (a loan that didn't have to be paid back until 2001) and Fitzroy couldn't do that. The AFL refused to pay Nauru out of the merger monies that a North-Fitzroy union would have picked up.

The thread was discussing the future possible mergers/relocations/cutting of Victorian clubs. Out of nowhere you brought up Fitzroy (and its decline) which has not played in the AFL (which represents all clubs including the Victorian based clubs) for a generation. My question is why did you bring up Fitzroy?

Go back and read the thread. I brought up Fitzroy in a response to a comment that mergers between Melbourne based club will be more powerful as they'll automatically have a much larger supporter base. That's hasn't necessarily been the case in the Fitzroy experience.

That is a very poor comment. Aren't Port Melbourne and Williamstown also Victorian clubs. Under your standard, these clubs should be included in this thread. The thread is about cutting/merging/relocating current Victorian AFL clubs. Which of these criteria has Fitzroy not complied with for 18/19 years?

Oh please. Since when have Port Melbourne and Williamstown been AFL clubs? Unlike both of those clubs Fitzroy was in the AFL nd still to this day has significant AFL links.

I believe the AFL (representing all clubs including the Victorian based clubs) did support Fitzroy and it failed.

How? List the support the AFL gave?

You say the AFL (which represents all clubs including the Victorian based clubs) did not support Fitzroy. The AFL (which represents all clubs including Victorian based clubs) contends it did give support. The truth is somewhere in between.

I contend that the AFL didn't give Fitzroy support. AFL commissioners telling potential sponsors of the Club in the early 1990s not to bother wasting their money as Fitzroy wouldn't be in the competition for much longer is not really being supportive in my book. That's just one of the many examples. Canberra, Tasmania, Schweppes, Grollo, Bernie Ahern, Hecron, CUB, Junction Oval, Solo, Galaxy, Port Powerlines, Melbourne United, redirection of dividends, Nauru, Princes Park and so on, are others.

If you have evidence to the contrary, present it here.

I would rather spend my time on BF discussing the future of the AFL (which represents all the clubs including the Victorian based clubs)

Then do so and ignore threads and discussions of this nature.

If you want to continue discussing events which occurred a generation ago, go ahead.

I will. Thanks.

In a thread titled "Cut the Teams/Too Many Teams in Victoria" thread, the Fitzroy experience is going to be mentioned. Fitzroy was cut from the competition in 1996 and their current role in relation to the AFL and the fate of their supporters is a cautionary tale for both the AFL and the supporters of other Victorian clubs who may be in the position of merging, relocating or exiting the competition. Fitzroy was unnecessarily cut in my view...a view now supported by several commentators and former football figures including amongst others Rohan Connolly, Greg Swann, Dyson Hore-Lacy and surprisingly Graeme Samuel and to a lesser extent Ian Collins.

 

[telsor]

Thankfully the D slug has gone.

Unlike GWS, I'm not so sure 'it' will need much, if any, financial subsidisation. It would certainly need the right personnel recruited & appointed by the AFL. It would obviously need priority draft picks. It would also need some additions to the two grounds, but that should be done by the State Gument as the owner. Otherwise I think it should be a fairly straight forward 'creation'.

Maybe you should start a fundraiser....Surely with such widespread and passionate support from Tasmanians as you claim it shouldn't be too hard to raise the startup capital and in doing so prove the level of support to the AFL.

30,000 'members' paying $50 a year for 3 or 4 years should be enough to convince people. (prob wouldn't be enough money, but you could get some sponsors to contribute too).

As for the ground upgrades being done by the government....Look at practically every thread on stadia, whoever owns then (yes, even the government) expect a return on their investment and/or the cost to be paid back over time, and doing that would eat into your theory about how cheap grounds would be a big part of funding the Tas club.

 

[madmug]

Maybe you should start a fundraiser....Surely with such widespread and passionate support from Tasmanians as you claim it shouldn't be too hard to raise the startup capital and in doing so prove the level of support to the AFL.

30,000 'members' paying $50 a year for 3 or 4 years should be enough to convince people. (prob wouldn't be enough money, but you could get some sponsors to contribute too).

As for the ground upgrades being done by the government....Look at practically every thread on stadia, whoever owns then (yes, even the government) expect a return on their investment and/or the cost to be paid back over time, and doing that would eat into your theory about how cheap grounds would be a big part of funding the Tas club.

We had a major sponsor (Mars) when the Gemba report was done & was part of the approach to Demitriou by the then Premier Paul Lennon. That was a waste as Demitriou already had his preconceived ideas.

I'm sure that can be done as part of any planning.

So you think Tassie should have some sort of a members commitment scheme? No one else had to. I dont think the AFL would be that ridiculous.

Thankfully you wont be on any sort of planning committee from the AFL.

 

[telsor]

We had a major sponsor (Mars) when the Gemba report was done & was part of the approach to Demitriou by the then Premier Paul Lennon. That was a waste as Demitriou already had his preconceived ideas.

I'm sure that can be done as part of any planning.

So you think Tassie should have some sort of a members commitment scheme? No one else had to. I dont think the AFL would be that ridiculous.

Thankfully you wont be on any sort of planning committee from the AFL.

I'm saying it might help convince the AFL to give you a team if enough people show their support in a tangible, ongoing, way and if they can be fairly comfortable the setup costs would be largely covered.

I'm not saying it should be a requirement.


Hell, if you *really* want a team 'soon', get a lot of people to sign up for one of the smaller clubs, and go to the AGM (using proxies of course) and vote in a new Board that will start the relocation process (might take a few years...I think most boards have 3-4 year terms).

Sure, it'd still be a relocated club, but I think the 'takeover' would make it sufficiently 'yours', especially as you could totally trash the previous identity (change name, nickname, jumper, song, etc).

 

[The Blue Baggers]

if your picking 12

MCG - Carlton , Collingwood , Richmond
Docklands - Essendon
KP - Geelong
MCG / Tasmania - Hawks
AO - Crows , Port
Perth - Eagles , Freo
SCG - Swans
Gabba - Brisbane

14 - add Saints & Melbourne
16 - add Bulldogs & North

 

[telsor]

if your picking 12

MCG - Carlton , Collingwood , Richmond
Docklands - Essendon
KP - Geelong
MCG / Tasmania - Hawks
AO - Crows , Port
Perth - Eagles , Freo
SCG - Swans
Gabba - Brisbane

14 - add Saints & Melbourne
16 - add Bulldogs & North

Carlton at Docklands, not MCG.

Geelong at KP/Docklands ( being regional, they wouldn't pick up the 'freed up' support of the dropped clubs without a sizable Melb presence). Also gives each ground 2.5 teams (although going to 1 ground would be possible).

I'd add the clubs the other way around...Bulldogs and North ahead of Saints and Melb.

Arguable if Port would make the 12. They'd definitely be the minnows of this comp (NSW/QLD aside)

 

[The Blue Baggers]

Carlton at Docklands, not MCG.

Geelong at KP/Docklands ( being regional, they wouldn't pick up the 'freed up' support of the dropped clubs without a sizable Melb presence). Also gives each ground 2.5 teams (although going to 1 ground would be possible).

I'd add the clubs the other way around...Bulldogs and North ahead of Saints and Melb.

Arguable if Port would make the 12. They'd definitely be the minnows of this comp (NSW/QLD aside)

agreed on port until AO opened , that ground has changed their fortunes !!

 

[madmug]

I'm saying it might help convince the AFL to give you a team if enough people show their support in a tangible, ongoing, way and if they can be fairly comfortable the setup costs would be largely covered.

I'm not saying it should be a requirement.


Hell, if you *really* want a team 'soon', get a lot of people to sign up for one of the smaller clubs, and go to the AGM (using proxies of course) and vote in a new Board that will start the relocation process (might take a few years...I think most boards have 3-4 year terms).

Sure, it'd still be a relocated club, but I think the 'takeover' would make it sufficiently 'yours', especially as you could totally trash the previous identity (change name, nickname, jumper, song, etc).

What! Hijack a club! Yes I can see that happening. 30k Tasmanians quietly filtering over to Melbourne & then sneaking into an AGM.

And they wouldnt even see us coming

Then the AFL would of course do nothing?

I think Tassie has done more than enough to get its own team without steeling someone elses.

 

[telsor]

agreed on port until AO opened , that ground has changed their fortunes !!

Not so much judging by the financial results from it. Considering the size of the crowds they're getting, even the revised numbers aren't especially pretty...Drop down to 'average' years....

Regardless, you'd be looking at 2.4M in WA for 2 clubs (1.2M ea), 6M Vics for 6 clubs (1m ea, not counting Tas support for Hawthorn), and 1.6M in SA for 2 clubs (0.8M ea)...add in the uneven spread (~30% support Port) and Port would be very much on the small side.

 

[sverik25]

Carlton at Docklands, not MCG.

Geelong at KP/Docklands ( being regional, they wouldn't pick up the 'freed up' support of the dropped clubs without a sizable Melb presence). Also gives each ground 2.5 teams (although going to 1 ground would be possible).

I'd add the clubs the other way around...Bulldogs and North ahead of Saints and Melb.

Arguable if Port would make the 12. They'd definitely be the minnows of this comp (NSW/QLD aside)

Despite our current financial position I don't think based on our larger supporter base that we should be chopped first. Might sound contradictory based on what I said earlier about North, but I still maintain that as a club we do have greater potential than North provided we get our management sorted out, which looks to have happened with the appointment of Finnis among others.

Obviously the financial situation is a big issue though so I could see why the AFL, if it were so inclined, would choose St Kilda first.

 

[telsor]

What! Hijack a club! Yes I can see that happening. 30k Tasmanians quietly filtering over to Melbourne & then sneaking into an AGM.

And they wouldnt even see us coming

As I said, proxies..you don't need to physically attend.

Yes, they'd see you coming, if not the first year, then the second, and more would sign up to 'defend their club'....Are you saying there aren't enough Tasmanians interested in getting a club to outvote the supporters of even a small Vic club?

Then the AFL would of course do nothing?

The AFL wanted North on the Gold coast, I think a grass roots campaign to move a club wouldn't upset them too much. They'd probably just hide behind 'it's a club thing'.

I think Tassie has done more than enough to get its own team without steeling someone elses.

Really? What have you done?

Commissioned a report years back that said what you wanted it to say and 'secured' a sponsor who got PR gain from saying they'd support you while knowing they'd never need to (and if memory serves, now sponsor someone else).

The report is now redundant...Time has moved on and every day that passes, the numbers are getting worse.

Meanwhile you keep supporting the existing clubs, making 'losing' that support a concern for entrenched interests.

Have people turn up to every FIFO game in Tas and stand outside 'protesting' the lack of a Tas team (and pointedly NOT going inside/spending money)...If there are more people outside than in, and crowds drop sharply, the AFL and Tas government will notice!

Convince your local politicians that there are more votes in stopping support for FIFO teams and instead 'invest' that money in either a local AFL team or if the AFL wont play ball, bankroll an A-League club, a basketball team and whatever other sports those millions will attract. Hell, bankroll the local football league(s) and have the people support it on TV and with bums on seats while boycotting the AFL...With the money you put into the AFL, you could get a Tas league with salary caps up near the WAFL/SANFL levels (probably better if the population supports it).

But instead you keep supporting the AFL, giving them no reason whatsoever to give you a club of your own, because they already get your support/money.

So again, what have you actually DONE?

 

[telsor]

Despite our current financial position I don't think based on our larger supporter base that we should be chopped first. Might sound contradictory based on what I said earlier about North, but I still maintain that as a club we do have greater potential than North provided we get our management sorted out, which looks to have happened with the appointment of Finnis among others.

Obviously the financial situation is a big issue though so I could see why the AFL, if it were so inclined, would choose St Kilda first.

I've heard a few times about St Kilda's 'large support base', but when they don't turn up/support the club in good times (recent grand finals) or bad (current), then they're just meaningless numbers on a piece of paper.

 

[sverik25]

I've heard a few times about St Kilda's 'large support base', but when they don't turn up/support the club in good times (recent grand finals) or bad (current), then they're just meaningless numbers on a piece of paper.

Didn't say large, rather larger than North and the Bulldogs, and the support was there in the GF years, although perhaps not as much as in 2004/05.

I do believe that compared to 2004/05 when we drew remarkable crowds for a "small" club against interstate sides (see 52,539 against Brisbane Rd 5, 2004 as best example), that the 2009/10 crowds suffered somewhat from the Lyon game plan - rightly or wrongly.

Our average home crowds in from 2004 - 2011:
2004 - 37,026 (ranked 5th)
2005 - 36,856 (ranked 7th)
2006 - 35,193 (ranked 7th)
2007 - 37,921 (ranked 7th)
2008 - 37,034 (ranked 8th)
2009 - 33,945 (ranked 8th)
2010 - 38,023 (ranked 5th)
2011 - 36,085 (ranked 7th)

Admittedly in recent years crowds have plunged, but have still remained higher than the Bulldogs for all of 2012-2014 and North in 2012. When you have a club go over the other side of the cliff without a flag so quickly like St Kilda has in recent years then I think that is understandable, even if it is disappointing.

The real challenge will be membership. This is certainly an area that requires a lot of work, but small steps in the right direction have been made this year, and I'm confident that next year will see more positive growth. The return to Moorabbin should help this greatly.

 

[madmug]

As I said, proxies..you don't need to physically attend.

Yes, they'd see you coming, if not the first year, then the second, and more would sign up to 'defend their club'....Are you saying there aren't enough Tasmanians interested in getting a club to outvote the supporters of even a small Vic club?



The AFL wanted North on the Gold coast, I think a grass roots campaign to move a club wouldn't upset them too much. They'd probably just hide behind 'it's a club thing'.



Really? What have you done?

Commissioned a report years back that said what you wanted it to say and 'secured' a sponsor who got PR gain from saying they'd support you while knowing they'd never need to (and if memory serves, now sponsor someone else).

The report is now redundant...Time has moved on and every day that passes, the numbers are getting worse.

Meanwhile you keep supporting the existing clubs, making 'losing' that support a concern for entrenched interests.

Have people turn up to every FIFO game in Tas and stand outside 'protesting' the lack of a Tas team (and pointedly NOT going inside/spending money)...If there are more people outside than in, and crowds drop sharply, the AFL and Tas government will notice!

Convince your local politicians that there are more votes in stopping support for FIFO teams and instead 'invest' that money in either a local AFL team or if the AFL wont play ball, bankroll an A-League club, a basketball team and whatever other sports those millions will attract. Hell, bankroll the local football league(s) and have the people support it on TV and with bums on seats while boycotting the AFL...With the money you put into the AFL, you could get a Tas league with salary caps up near the WAFL/SANFL levels (probably better if the population supports it).

But instead you keep supporting the AFL, giving them no reason whatsoever to give you a club of your own, because they already get your support/money.

So again, what have you actually DONE?

Waffle.

What group of 30k Aussie rules supporters went interstate to agitated for GWS, GC, Freo, WCE, Sydney Swans, indeed any new club, now or at anytime in the past?. People agitated not to lose their clubs once established, that is a lot different.

In what world would you manage to organise 30k people to 'steal' a football club? From interstate?

Their is support for AFL football here, their is discontent with the money spent on FIFO clubs. Their was a political reason for the Hawthorn deal. All this has been said, but you clearly choose to ignore that reality.

The AFL commission are due to come up with a plan for football here.

Perhaps we should kidnap the AFL commission & hold them for ransom to get a team. That makes about as much sense.

Hopefully we wont have to steal anything. (but I guess its an option)

 

[telsor]

What group of 30k Aussie rules supporters went interstate to agitated for GWS, GC, Freo, WCE, Sydney Swans, indeed any new club, now or at anytime in the past?. People agitated not to lose their clubs once established, that is a lot different.

All these clubs were created for a pretty solid reason...What is the compelling reason to create a club in Tas?

In what world would you manage to organise 30k people to 'steal' a football club? From interstate?

The interstate part is easy, as I said, you just buy a membership and assign the voting rights to a proxy. I'm sure there are plenty of Hawthorn and North members with voting rights down there already.

The organisation...Buggered if I know, but then, I don't need to. Hell, even if you got 5,000 and took a shot, it'd put a fire under some people (in the AFL and some clubs) as to the demand and frustration in Tas.

As things stand, you're really just passively waiting for someone to do you a favour that they have no particular interest in doing (and some reason not to) and delay doesn't work in your favour ... Population and economy are growing faster elsewhere, weakening your case.

Their is support for AFL football here, their is discontent with the money spent on FIFO clubs. Their was a political reason for the Hawthorn deal. All this has been said, but you clearly choose to ignore that reality.

And what it is costing the AFL? If they get the money/support regardless, then they wont really care.
Why is it in THEIR interest to change the status quo? (and more particularly, to change it the way you want them to).

It's a sad thing, but most people work on self interest (or the interest of their organisation), so you need to make the AFL/clubs realise that it's in their interest to have a Tas team. Currently you have 2 clubs who would by hurt by the idea and an AFL who sees the support already there going to existing clubs, so nothing to 'gain'.

The AFL commission are due to come up with a plan for football here.

So your plan is to let someone else who has no vested interest in a Tas club dictate the 'plan'?
Good luck with that.

 

[madmug]

All these clubs were created for a pretty solid reason...What is the compelling reason to create a club in Tas?

So your plan is to let someone else who has no vested interest in a Tas club dictate the 'plan'?
Good luck with that.

What was the compelling reason to start the Richmond football club? What was that solid reason? Did 30k people meet at the Richmond town hall & demanded the VFA/VFL allow them to put a team in? I mean thats a silly question too.

You seem to think Tassie has to do things done no where else to get its own team. Crap

The second point too is silly. You know the AFL have complete say in who plays in the AFL. So yes, the commission 'dictate' the 'plan'. They dictate who plays who, where & when. Simple isnt it.

I thought you'd understand this.

We're all lucky you have no say in anything

 

[telsor]

What was the compelling reason to start the Richmond football club? What was that solid reason? Did 30k people meet at the Richmond town hall & demanded the VFA/VFL allow them to put a team in? I mean thats a silly question too.

You seem to think Tassie has to do things done no where else to get its own team. Crap

The second point too is silly. You know the AFL have complete say in who plays in the AFL. So yes, the commission 'dictate' the 'plan'. They dictate who plays who, where & when. Simple isnt it.

I thought you'd understand this.

We're all lucky you have no say in anything

You don't think you can influence those who make the decisions?

As for Richmond joining the VFL, it happened because we had numbers on our side...Lots of fans, and lots of $ (well, pounds) that otherwise would have stayed in the VFA, and if the VFL wanted to become the 'big' comp, they needed the big clubs. All the fans and dollars from Tas are already in the AFL.

 

[madmug]

You don't think you can influence those who make the decisions?

As for Richmond joining the VFL, it happened because we had numbers on our side...Lots of fans, and lots of $ (well, pounds) that otherwise would have stayed in the VFA, and if the VFL wanted to become the 'big' comp, they needed the big clubs. All the fans and dollars from Tas are already in the AFL.

The 'influence' is political in nature. It is happening. What effect, is up to the powers that be.

You just made that up, is it part of Richmond folklore?

Just a quick look shows the Richmond club started in 1885 in a pub, & by 1891 had 231 members. Overwhelming

Surely you can make up a better story?

 

[telsor]

The 'influence' is political in nature. It is happening. What effect, is up to the powers that be.

You just made that up, is it part of Richmond folklore?

Just a quick look shows the Richmond club started in 1885 in a pub, & by 1891 had 231 members. Overwhelming

Surely you can make up a better story?

and in 1885 joining the VFA was a matter of walking up and saying 'we've got a team, can we play?'

As I said, that was when we joined the VFL. (top of my head, 1908)

I should also add that competition for spots has gotten a lot harder over the past 100 or so years.

 

[madmug]

and in 1885 joining the VFA was a matter of walking up and saying 'we've got a team, can we play?'

As I said, that was when we joined the VFL. (top of my head, 1908)

I should also add that competition for spots has gotten a lot harder over the past 100 or so years.

You cant be wrong can you. Just make up more 'stuff' if it keeps you happy.

Expecting 30k to have a proxy take over a club is a stupid idea, & I think you know that. Dont you?

Lets just wait for the AFL to present its plan. They run the league. They have the say. They have the football political power.

In the mean time, Hawthorn & North will try & keep the money rolling in. I'm sure they will be doing their own politicking.

But be sure, It will stop at sometime.

 

[The Blue Baggers]

Carlton at Docklands, not MCG.

Geelong at KP/Docklands ( being regional, they wouldn't pick up the 'freed up' support of the dropped clubs without a sizable Melb presence). Also gives each ground 2.5 teams (although going to 1 ground would be possible).

I'd add the clubs the other way around...Bulldogs and North ahead of Saints and Melb.

Arguable if Port would make the 12. They'd definitely be the minnows of this comp (NSW/QLD aside)

the blues would probably play a 5/6 split - non vic clubs @ docklands , vic clubs @ mcg

if it were my decision i'd play the non vic clubs @ princes park !!