7News: Major Review into the AFL, independent of the AFL & the 18 Clubs, will start early 2021.

[Herne Hill Hammer]

I'm sure it's a contributing factor.

There is a viscous cycle at work.

Small clubs get worse time slots
Worse time slots mean less sponsors/crowds.
Less sponsors/crowds mean clubs get/stay smaller.

Smaller clubs getting less from sponsors and crowds get higher equalisation payments...

A few years 'down' wouldn't matter so much (e.g. a rebuild) but when it goes for a decade or so, it would start having noteworthy effects.

Short term, it makes sense doing it the way they do...big clubs in premium time slots make the league more money than it 'costs' in equalisation payments in a given year. (or at least, you'd assume they do...)

Long term, it's more debatable.

But AFL executive annual bonuses don't depend on how the game will look in 20 years, do they?




Of course, the counter argument is that over the past 50-odd years, only one club (from the old VFL) has significantly grown it's support (Hawthorn) and only one has shrunk in a big way (Melbourne). While Hawthorn's success accounts for it's growth, Melbourne's decline is a bit more debatable...sure, they're been bad, but really not THAT bad compared to others...certainly not the kind of outlier that Hawthorn represents the other way.

Melbourne have had, that I can remember, 2 really low periods, the late 70s / early 80s, when Barassi was brought in with his 5 year plan and then from 07 to 14. I would say they only club worse than them in that time has probably been St Kilda. Even Fitzroy only had 2 really bad years immediately prior to them being terminated. Sydney were just as bad as Fitzroy for a couple of year period in the early 90s.

Maybe Melbourne's sustained down times have just been at the wrong times for whatever reasons.

 

[bzparkes]

Why does Western Australian football destroy everything good it can get its hands on? I was watching the Sunday League GF, Armadale v Kelmscott 2000 on YouTube. Now those clubs are lost in the huge, identityless mass of clubs called the Amateurs, whereas the Sunday League had unique regional identity.

WAFC being greedy with the money brought in by WCE and Freo most likely, that and a cultural shift in the younger generations to follow the AFL and not a local club, which is a shame.

I remember as a kid in the late 80s/early 90s how big the Freo derby was (live in East Freo back then). Had a massive following.

Not sure what it's like now though as I haven't lived in Perth since the early 90s but judging from the crowds, not as big as it was back then I imagine.

 

[Laphroaig]

Anybody with half a brain would see why West Coast and Adelaide's crowds are far more impressive.

Unfortunately I have a whole brain, and am unable to see how your ongoing desperate shifting of argument makes any sense at all.

 

[AlibiMonday]

A WAFL premiership in 2021 is still a WAFL premiership. Subiaco for example continues in the same competition against the same traditional rivals. All Subiaco's WAFL club records, such as their fifteen premierships continue. When Subiaco next wins a premiership as part of the same competition they've been in since 1901, that will be their sixteenth WAFL premiership.

My club will never play their traditional rivals Collingwood or Carlton again and their hundred year old VFL/AFL records are finished. They will never again have a Brownlow Medallist, never play on the MCG again, never be able to add to their VFL-AFL premiership tally. Any Melbourne based club removed or merged in the current competition will suffer the same fate.

i’m curious Roylion, given what happened, would have you preferred Fitzroy relocate to Brisbane like South did when they had the chance? They would still be alive now would they not?

 

[Demonic Ascent]

As a guy who grew up in Perth, I think the best theoretical answer to that is a promotion-and-relegation system of two or three national divisions and then every club is part of the system. But, obviously, that idea has weaknesses and will never happen now anyway.

That could have happened in the 80s if WA and SA forced the VFLs hand. They had the opportunity then but WA decided to join an expanded VFL with SA following soon after due to some of the SANFL teams trying to beat them to the punch (not just Port).

The VFL had an agenda to "rationalise" Vic teams in the 80s/90s but the grassroots support of those teams was so strong that besides South and Fitzroy all clubs remained in there existing state. Caroline Wilson and Mike Sheahan were constantly reporting during the 90s that the AFL commissions saw 6 Vic clubs as the ideal number but that horse has bolted. You may see one or possible two Vic clubs relocate in the future (ala South) but let's be honest if they couldn't force the Kangas to move to Gold Coast circa 2007 what chance is there really of a full blown relocation especially with the money that's now in the game.

In future decades population growth will create a natural scarcity of seats at Docklands and even the G where clubs like North and Saints will be able to sell fully reserved membership tickets like Essendon do now. It may take another 30 years but it will happen. At the end of the day it's not about profit it's about sustainability and I have confidence that every club in the competition (even GC and GWS) will become self sustainable in the long term.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

I think the real answer was the retention of the Australian Football Council as the peak body of Australian Rules and then vest in it the power to build a national league.

The AFL are a league run by a national body. Not an expanded state league that partners their state government to maintain historical advantages for the clubs and supporters from their state.

In 1990 they reform the Australian Rules leagues:
- VFL becomes the AFL with 12 teams (Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Richmond, Hawthorn, Geelong, Fremantle, West Coast, Adelaide, Port Adelaide, Brisbane, Sydney)
- VFA becomes the VFL with Melbourne, North Melbourne, Footscray, Fitzroy, St Kilda
- WAFL same as Fremantle and Eagles composite team

Why would Richmond get in ahead of Melbourne in 1990? Melbourne was relatively financially sound and had made finals for 3 consecutive years including PF and GF. Richmond were on their knees winning spoons and having to tin rattle with the Save Our Skins campaign (not having a go at Richmond just stating facts - I was at the G for the SOS fundraiser).

Even the Hawks despite their success were run poorly off field. There is no guarantee they would have been part of a national expansion, nor the Cats who I believe had suffered hugely as the city had with the collapse of the pyramid banking scheme.

 

[GOTHELIONS16]

Being 194cm tall, small man anger would be the most accurate way to describe my post.

Just one question. With the exception of Richmond and Collingwood, what other club in the comp consistently puts more bums on seats than West Coast?

This year, Brisbane.

 

[Rich01]

Why would Richmond get in ahead of Melbourne in 1990? Melbourne was relatively financially sound and had made finals for 3 consecutive years including PF and GF. Richmond were on their knees winning spoons and having to tin rattle with the Save Our Skins campaign (not having a go at Richmond just stating facts - I was at the G for the SOS fundraiser).

I think passion of the supporters saved Richmond. Similar thing saved Melbourne six years later, but it was Hawthorn supporters who saved your club from merging. Melbourne were considerably stronger on and off the field than Richmond during these times.

Unfortunately for Fitzroy, they didn’t have the support of stronger supporter bases like Hawthorn or Richmond when the AFL started to push them into oblivion.

 

[telsor]

Melbourne have had, that I can remember, 2 really low periods, the late 70s / early 80s, when Barassi was brought in with his 5 year plan and then from 07 to 14. I would say they only club worse than them in that time has probably been St Kilda. Even Fitzroy only had 2 really bad years immediately prior to them being terminated. Sydney were just as bad as Fitzroy for a couple of year period in the early 90s.

Maybe Melbourne's sustained down times have just been at the wrong times for whatever reasons.

I imagine studies could be done on the hows and why's of Melbourne's decline from the powerhouse they were in the first half of the VFLs history.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

What is getting divided by 17 instead of 18? If all clubs are profitable, in your world, clubs get no money from the AFL so how many times it gets divided shouldn't come into it.

Don't blame non-WA, AFL states if WA are and have always been greedy with their entrance fees and WCE have always been greedy with their membership costs. With the bank balance Eagles supporters are always bragging about, instead of hording it, why aren't you lot asking WCE for cheaper memberships? I've got plenty of mates with seats and memberships and others in the queue for them.

At the MCG you have MCC memberships, I dunno what they're worth these days, $1,000 a year once you get one maybe (I remember they were about $680, 10 or 15 years ago). What's a membership worth for Optus? $6,000 per year from memory and you had to pay 5 years worth up front. Don't blame the rest of the country because your club, football commission and state government are all greedy.

I haven’t got a clue what that rant was all about? I thought we were discussing if the AFL should continue to fund clubs.
All clubs are given the salary cap out of the TV rights. So all equal there. But outside that all clubs should have operate within their means and income. But you should not be allowed to spend what you don’t have. Just common sense in the business world but for AFL club CEO’s just something they can’t grasp.

 

[The Warlord]

WAFC being greedy with the money brought in by WCE and Freo most likely, that and a cultural shift in the younger generations to follow the AFL and not a local club, which is a shame.

I remember as a kid in the late 80s/early 90s how big the Freo derby was (live in East Freo back then). Had a massive following.

Not sure what it's like now though as I haven't lived in Perth since the early 90s but judging from the crowds, not as big as it was back then I imagine.

And links between WA heartland clubs and AFL clubs seems lost.

I will never understand how Cam Zurhaar was playing for East Freo but it took North to grab him in the rookie draft.

He'd be perfect forward line icing on the cake for this emerging Freo team imo.

 

[The Warlord]

I haven’t got a clue what that rant was all about? I thought we were discussing if the AFL should continue to fund clubs.
All clubs are given the salary cap out of the TV rights. So all equal there. But outside that all clubs should have operate within their means and income. But you should not be allowed to spend what you don’t have. Just common sense in the business world but for AFL club CEO’s just something they can’t grasp.

Some clubs are not afforded the chance to make what others are, so it is already an uneven playing field, hence your rationalist argument falls at the first hurdle.

This is something I'd like to see the review that the thread is about address.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Melbourne have had, that I can remember, 2 really low periods, the late 70s / early 80s, when Barassi was brought in with his 5 year plan and then from 07 to 14. I would say they only club worse than them in that time has probably been St Kilda. Even Fitzroy only had 2 really bad years immediately prior to them being terminated. Sydney were just as bad as Fitzroy for a couple of year period in the early 90s.

Maybe Melbourne's sustained down times have just been at the wrong times for whatever reasons.

I've thought about this a lot and I think a lot of it is demographics. Obviously there are the historic factors but I think Melbourne still has the capacity to be a relatively large club (say Carlton/Geelong scale) that North, Saints and Dogs currently don't. Look at the turnout we had at the 2018 MCG finals, there is still a latent support base there.

Edit - when I say demographic i mean Melbourne supporters are generally not "blue collar". Obviously there are blue collar Melbourne supporters but I think Melbourne would have a higher proportion of supporters that have other options rather than turn up to watch a poor footy team for 20 years. When they come good they'll be back but in the meantime they won't waste their Saturdays (Sundays/Friday's etc).

There is obviously more to it and there are plenty of examples of Melbourne supporters whose kids turned to the Hawks or Bombers but overall I believe this is a key issue for Melbourne to overcome.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

I imagine studies could be done on the hows and why's of Melbourne's decline from the powerhouse they were in the first half of the VFLs history.

I don't think Melbourne really were a powerhouse before the 50s? They had the connections due to being the founding club but they really weren't very well performed onfield or strong off field until kickstarting their premiership run in 1939 (10 flags in 25 years).

 

[Papa G]

Melbourne are the bloke who's Great Grandfather was wealthy and successful, but the following generations have been useless and just live off the dwindling trust funds. Still gets invited to Christmas, gets drunk and sometimes tells a funny story, but is largely ignored.

 

[mcfazza28]

Some clubs are not afforded the chance to make what others are, so it is already an uneven playing field, hence your rationalist argument falls at the first hurdle.

This is something I'd like to see the review that the thread is about address.

I think you and Great White Shark have just demonstrated the central issue here. You feel all clubs should have an equitable chance of success. Sharky believes the salary cap is enough and clubs should be able to spend beyond with off field spend if they can.

It’s an awkward question. I totally get that smaller Victorian clubs don’t get the exposure. Unfortunately, this is a self fulfilling prophecy as you don’t get good slots as it is perceived you won’t fill them based on current bad slot numbers.

I think the outcome of your approach is more fairness for small Victorian clubs but less fairness for the interstate clubs. This is as spreading the good slots around keeps the small Victorian clubs on life support and maintains the leagues biggest structural issue- too many Victorian teams.

Too many Victorian clubs leads to an uneven fixture where we can’t have home and away. It leads to too many Victorian v Victorian games which leads to perverse situations like Collingwood playing in Melbourne 15 times next year and Richmond’s 7 straight games at the MCG going into finals.

I know this isn’t fair, but I’m a West Coast fan who grew up with terrible fixture bias and ridiculously slow nationalisation of the league.

It’s a national league that should be for only the biggest and best. My club Subiaco didn’t make it and we are the most financially strong, successful club outside the AFL. Why shouldn’t smaller Victorian clubs play in a state league like we do?

 

[Demonic Ascent]

I think you and Great White Shark have just demonstrated the central issue here. You feel all clubs should have an equitable chance of success. Sharky believes the salary cap is enough and clubs should be able to spend beyond with off field spend if they can.

It’s an awkward question. I totally get that smaller Victorian clubs don’t get the exposure. Unfortunately, this is a self fulfilling prophecy as you don’t get good slots as it is perceived you won’t fill them based on current bad slot numbers.

I think the outcome of your approach is more fairness for small Victorian clubs but less fairness for the interstate clubs. This is as spreading the good slots around keeps the small Victorian clubs on life support and maintains the leagues biggest structural issue- too many Victorian teams.

Too many Victorian clubs leads to an uneven fixture where we can’t have home and away. It leads to too many Victorian v Victorian games which leads to perverse situations like Collingwood playing in Melbourne 15 times next year and Richmond’s 7 straight games at the MCG going into finals.

I know this isn’t fair, but I’m a West Coast fan who grew up with terrible fixture bias and ridiculously slow nationalisation of the league.

It’s a national league that should be for only the biggest and best. My club Subiaco didn’t make it and we are the most financially strong, successful club outside the AFL. Why shouldn’t smaller Victorian clubs play in a state league like we do?

You're looking at it wrong - we still play in the same league we always have. It wasn't a newly created national league, it is an expanded VFL. You decided to join the VFL yet now complain about the clubs who created it? Doesn't make sense. If you wanted to have a different model for a national comp West Coast should never have stumped up the $4m to join the VFL, they should have held out and hoped the economic situation would force the hand of the bigger Vic clubs to breakaway into a national comp. You didn't and now that horse has long bolted.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Melbourne are the bloke who's Great Grandfather was wealthy and successful, but the following generations have been useless and just live off the dwindling trust funds. Still gets invited to Christmas, gets drunk and sometimes tells a funny story, but is largely ignored.

Making Port what? The cousin who still talks about how they won B&Fs and made rep teams in junior footy but never cracked it in the big league?

 

[LoungeLizard]

I think you and Great White Shark have just demonstrated the central issue here. You feel all clubs should have an equitable chance of success. Sharky believes the salary cap is enough and clubs should be able to spend beyond with off field spend if they can.

It’s an awkward question. I totally get that smaller Victorian clubs don’t get the exposure. Unfortunately, this is a self fulfilling prophecy as you don’t get good slots as it is perceived you won’t fill them based on current bad slot numbers.

I think the outcome of your approach is more fairness for small Victorian clubs but less fairness for the interstate clubs. This is as spreading the good slots around keeps the small Victorian clubs on life support and maintains the leagues biggest structural issue- too many Victorian teams.

Too many Victorian clubs leads to an uneven fixture where we can’t have home and away. It leads to too many Victorian v Victorian games which leads to perverse situations like Collingwood playing in Melbourne 15 times next year and Richmond’s 7 straight games at the MCG going into finals.

I know this isn’t fair, but I’m a West Coast fan who grew up with terrible fixture bias and ridiculously slow nationalisation of the league.

It’s a national league that should be for only the biggest and best. My club Subiaco didn’t make it and we are the most financially strong, successful club outside the AFL. Why shouldn’t smaller Victorian clubs play in a state league like we do?

The bold bit.
You are asking why a small Vic club should change leagues?

Subiaco are playing in the same league they were before the AFL, the smaller Vic clubs are doing the same, you want them to change leagues.

 

[DeLaCon]

There are too many clubs in Melbourne. North Melbourne, St Kilda, Melbourne are three clubs that need to look at their respective situations.

North could easily be merged with Carlton to create Carlton North FC, St Kilda should look at merging or moving to New Zealand and Melbourne should head to Tasmania and become the Tassie Demons.

 

[Laphroaig]

It’s a national league that should be for only the biggest and best. My club Subiaco didn’t make it and we are the most financially strong, successful club outside the AFL. Why shouldn’t smaller Victorian clubs play in a state league like we do?

There's a really simple answer to that.

The WA rich kids Club saw an opportunity to take over WA football as their personal plaything.

So they handed the WA Clubs multi six figure bribes distributions, that the Clubs desperately needed, to change their vote and endorse application to join the VFL with a new Club owned by the WAFL. The money allegedly came from the WAFL, but the WAFL simply didn't have that kind of money laying around - nor did they have the capacity to raise it.

Then they dangled more multi six figure bribes up front licence fee payment in front of the VFL Clubs, some of which feared they'd be cut when a national comp evolved, some of them couldn't survive long enough to find out, and some of them both. The WAFL didn't have the licence money laying about either, but somehow it got paid. Intervention of fairies, maybe.

Then as soon as the deal was done, the rich kids immediately paid the WAFL a two million dollar bribe profit on resale of the licence and took over.

It created a shambles, and contrary to popular belief in some quarters was not the desired outcome in Vic football circles either (apart from the aforementioned scared clubs).

 

[Laphroaig]

North could easily be merged with Carlton to create Carlton North FC,

You can put that idea where the sun don't shine, thanks.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Some clubs are not afforded the chance to make what others are, so it is already an uneven playing field, hence your rationalist argument falls at the first hurdle.

This is something I'd like to see the review that the thread is about address.

Please provide examples why your club can’t make as you say others can.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

There's a really simple answer to that.

The WA rich kids Club saw an opportunity to take over WA football as their personal plaything.

So they handed the WA Clubs multi six figure bribes distributions, that the Clubs desperately needed, to change their vote and endorse application to join the VFL with a new Club owned by the WAFL. The money allegedly came from the WAFL, but the WAFL simply didn't have that kind of money laying around - nor did they have the capacity to raise it.

Then they dangled more multi six figure bribes up front licence fee payment in front of the VFL Clubs, some of which feared they'd be cut when a national comp evolved, some of them couldn't survive long enough to find out, and some of them both. The WAFL didn't have the licence money laying about either, but somehow it got paid. Intervention of fairies, maybe.

Then as soon as the deal was done, the rich kids immediately paid the WAFL a two million dollar bribe profit on resale of the licence and took over.

It created a shambles, and contrary to popular belief in some quarters was not the desired outcome in Vic football circles either (apart from the aforementioned scared clubs).

Pretty spot on. WA football never joined the VFL a private consortium did and paid a bribe to the WAFL clubs with promises they broke very quickly to get the Eagles up and running. The original vote was 8-0 against the WCE entering theVFL. Miraculously that vote changed 6-2 for in less than 3 weeks.

 

[Prince Imperial]

It’s a national league that should be for only the biggest and best. My club Subiaco didn’t make it and we are the most financially strong, successful club outside the AFL. Why shouldn’t smaller Victorian clubs play in a state league like we do?

Because prior to 1987 your crowds were absolute crap and way below the Victorian clubs you dream of booting out of their own league.

Australian Football - Subiaco Football Club - Biggest Crowd

australianfootball.com