VIC fans - merge, relocate or relegate?

Which is the least worst option?

  • Merge with another Vic club

    Votes: 24 17.3%

  • Relocate interstate

    Votes: 68 48.9%

  • Drop down to the VFL

    Votes: 47 33.8%
  • Total voters
    139

Remove this Banner Ad

Demonic Ascent said:
On the grounds that the yes vote was manipulated with fraudulent proxy votes
Click to expand...

So a court would have to establish that the proxy votes were fraudulent. How would they do this? Bill Guest's action may not have been strictly ethical, but how were they illegal? Is it illegal for a non-Melbourne supporter to join the club as a voting member? Are proxy votes illegal? Supporters of other clubs joined the Brisbane Lions in the premiership years to increase their chances of picking up a Grand Final ticket.

Demonic Ascent said:
and that MFC members were disenfranchised and unable to exercise their right to vote.
Click to expand...

How would a court establish this?

Demonic Ascent said:
Considering the margins were so thin it wouldn't have taken much for the challenge to prove both if these factors led to the yes vote getting up
Click to expand...

'Wouldn't have taken much'? How would they prove the Demon Alternative's claims?
 
Last edited:
Demonic Ascent said:
However what I can say is the positions are different,
Click to expand...

Are they? How?

Dyson Hore-Lacy was also actively seeking the merger of his club. In other words a North Melbourne - Fitzroy merger. He was one of three Fitzroy directors responsible for negotiating the terms of the merger. Just as Ian Ridley was.

Demonic Ascent said:
Ridley had to protect the narrative he and his board had created around there being majority support for the merger and the reasons behind it.
Click to expand...

Did he? In 2001 Ridley said (and I quote) "...."I am very happy that the Melbourne Football Club retained its own identity." His book was published in 2002.

Demonic Ascent said:
The merger was sought because Ridley and the board thought MFC was not financially viable so wanted to takeover HFCs assets to secure the future. 25 years later and we're still alive and kicking so he was wrong about that as well despite his intimate knowledge.
Click to expand...

Well yes.

That's because the climate is now different from what it was in 1996 where the AFL policy was for Victorian clubs to merge. The AFL were throwing millions of dollars at clubs to merge.

But given that he quite candidly explains how the process of seeking a merger came about what happened and the events that led the merger to fail, why wouldn't his account be reliable?
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

Demonic Ascent said:
Roylion I've already explained the above, it's clear we have a difference of opinion so not sure there's any point continuing to go round in circles
Click to expand...

We don't actually. I'm opposed to mergers.

But I'm still not clear on what grounds "the 'pro-merger' vote would not have held up to a court challenge." as you claimed. All you've done is present the claims of the Demon Alternative.
 
Just my 10c worth re divisions with promotion & relegation, I don't think it would work due to the travel cost.

The Australian area is 7.692 million sq km, where as England for example 130 thousand sq km (smaller than Victoria at 227) this reduces the reliance on air travel and the associated costs.
 
Twoslabs said:
Just my 10c worth re divisions with promotion & relegation, I don't think it would work due to the travel cost.

The Australian area is 7.692 million sq km, where as England for example 130 thousand sq km (smaller than Victoria at 227) this reduces the reliance on air travel and the associated costs.
Click to expand...
The AFL already regularly schedules games in all of the places I listed as new teams to take the comp to 24 teams.

If it was 48/60+ teams across 4/5 divisions then I agree it becomes a bit too much, but a 2 division, 24 team comp would be just as manageable as the current 18 team comp.
 
JohnZ said:
The AFL already regularly schedules games in all of the places I listed as new teams to take the comp to 24 teams.

If it was 48/60+ teams across 4/5 divisions then I agree it becomes a bit too much, but a 2 division, 24 team comp would be just as manageable as the current 18 team comp.
Click to expand...

I agree with that meaning as the gap between high performing Div 1 clubs & low performing Div 2 clubs would just be too big to compete with IMO.

I think that in the future (40-50 years), Divisions/Conferences could work in favour to help equal the league to the fairest it could possible be.

I decided to break the competition into two difference Conferences (Eastern/Western) during some free time and this was the best I could design in regards to the amount interstate/Victoria clubs and also by fairness of the league without getting rid of any of the VIC teams we have now.

Credit for JohnZ & Engimal v3 for the team suggestions and conferences idea as well:

2050 Australian Football League Season

Eastern Conference (AFLEC) A
Brisbane Lions (Queensland) (GABBA)
Gold Coast Suns (Queensland) (Metricon Stadium)
North Queensland Crocodiles (Queensland) (2050) (New Cairns/Townsville Stadiums)
Sydney Swans (New South Wales) (Sydney Cricket Ground)
Western Sydney Giants (New South Wales) (Spotless Stadium)
North Sydney Rangers (New South Wales) (2040) (New North Sydney Stadium)
Canberra Cockatoos (Australian Capital Territory) (2030) (Redeveloped Manuka Oval)
Carlton Blues (Victoria) (Melbourne Cricket Ground)
Essendon Bombers (Victoria) (Marvel Stadium)
Hawthorn Hawks (Victoria) (Marvel Stadium)
North Melbourne Kangaroos (Victoria) (Marvel Stadium)
Richmond Tigers (Victoria) (Melbourne Cricket Ground)

Western Conference (AFLWC) B
Adelaide Crows (South Australia) (Adelaide Oval)
Port Adelaide Power (South Australia) (Adelaide Oval)
Darwin Sharks (Northern Territory) (2050) (New Darwin/Alice Springs Stadiums)
West Coast Eagles (Western Australia) (Perth Stadium)
Fremantle Dockers (Western Australia) (Perth Stadium)
Perth Falcons (Western Australia) (2040) (Perth Stadium)
Tasmania Devils (Tasmania) (2030) (Redeveloped Blundstone Arena/University of Tasmania Stadium)
Collingwood Magpies (Victoria) (Melbourne Cricket Ground)
Footscray Bulldogs (Victoria) (Marvel Stadium)
Geelong Cats (Victoria) (Karidina Park)
Melbourne Demons (Victoria) (Melbourne Cricket Ground)
St. Kilda Saints (Victoria) (Marvel Stadium)

Each conference has 12 clubs placed in them similar to what JohnZ created with 5 teams in heartland Victoria and 7 interstate teams. All of the current NSW/QLD teams + Canberra, North Queensland & North Sydney are placed in the Eastern Conference (must be a spread of MCG, Marvel & other grounds) while all of the current SA/WA teams + Darwin, Perth & Tasmania are placed in the Western Conference with the rest of the of the Victorian teams.

Each season would consist of 24 rounds with each team playing each other twice (9 home games & 9 away games) in their conference therefore translating into 18 rounds of football. The final 6 rounds of the regular rounds of the season would be crossover games (3 home & 3 away) similar to how the AFLW used to operate. However, the crossover games would be only be played against Interstate teams from one conference vs. Victorian teams from the other conference and the same would be for Victorian Teams from the Western Conference playing against Interstate teams from the Eastern Conference as stated below for example:

Crossover Round 1 (R19)
Brisbane Lions (A) vs. Tasmania Devils (B)
Adelaide Crows (B) vs. Canberra Cockatoos (A)
Collingwood Magpies (B) vs. Gold Coast Suns (A)
Carlton Blues (A) vs. Port Adelaide Power (B)
North Queensland Crocodiles (A) vs. Footscray Bulldogs (B)
Darwin Sharks (B) vs. Essendon Bombers (A)
Geelong Cats (B) vs. Sydney Swans (A)
Hawthorn Hawks (A) vs. West Coast Eagles (B)
Western Sydney Giants (A) vs. Melbourne Demons (B)
Fremantle Dockers (B) vs. North Melbourne Kangaroos (A)
St. Kilda Saints (B) vs. North Sydney Rangers (A)
Richmond Tigers (A) vs. Perth Falcons (B)

Unfortunately Canberra & Tasmania would have to be part of the Victorian teams set-up from both of their crossover games to make it equal travel time for the other teams as they are the nearest interstate teams to VIC. (6 teams VIC & 6 Interstate)

After the regular season of 24 rounds has been completed. The top 4 clubs with the best win-loss record from each conference would advance to the playoff knockout finals system similar to how it is presented below, with the Grand Final being rotated within different stadiums across the country with each city needing a minimal 50,000 capacity at one of their stadiums to be able to host the GF.

Week 1 Quarter Finals
A1 vs. B4
B2 vs. A3
B1 vs. A4
A2 vs. B3

Week 2 Semi Finals
Winner of Quarter Final 1 vs. Winner of Quarter Final 2 (Highest Placed Team Hosts)
Winner of Quarter Final 3 vs. Winner of Quarter Final 4 (Highest Placed Team Hosts)

Week 3 Grand Final
Winner of Semi-Final 1 vs. Winner of Semi-Final 2
(Rotating Cycle of Cities)-(Stadium Capacity of 50,000 Minimal)

In conclusion, I think this concept would make the fixturing a lot more not just for VIC teams but also Interstate teams as well and would make the league more competitive within those conferences & states.
 
I grew up in Melbourne and I miss the old suburban grounds. One of the best things about AFL in the heartland is the fact that many of the clubs were based a stone's throw from one another. Carlton, Collingwood, Richmond, Melbourne all sandwiched together, within walking distance of the MCG. The others not much further afield, with the exception of Geelong. That's part of the romance of the game in Melbourne.

But is it sustainable? In a national competition, can Victoria really support 10 clubs?

I remember when Fitzroy folded. There was no schadenfreude in that. And I can't help but wonder what might have happened had they survived a few more years. That part of Melbourne was working-class 40-50 years ago but is now as gentrified as anywhere. Maybe they could have been revived?

I don't look forward to the day the remaining 10 clubs get squeezed but is it perhaps inevitable? I think 18 clubs may be two too many. What will that look like?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Not that I think it would ever happen, but in the event it did - Would have to be one of the smaller clubs. Melbourne, North Melbourne, St Kilda or Bulldogs.

The Dogs were one of the few clubs to actually turn a profit this year. We're now one of the most asset-rich clubs in the competition, have had numerous consecutive years of profit, have exited pokies so aren't reliant on them for profit, have had a recent flag win and look to be on the rise rather than moving downward. The club is also very popular amongst the African community and does a lot of community work, so I can't see the AFL letting us fail from here. On the downside, we still take a larger than average distribution from the AFL, and our membership base is still relatively small.

In terms of most likely to merge, the Saints are in a pretty bad debt position, although they could turn this around quickly if they continue to improve on-field and can up their membership base. If forced to choose, I'd pick North as most likely
 
AstonSouffle said:
Yes it can, and there's multiple threads on this.

What do you propose the weaker Melbourne clubs do that still turn a profit? Just tell them to fu** off?

Let's say they get rid of few, why would that be so beneficial? Genuinely what good would that bring to the game?
Click to expand...


It can in revenue terms as they facilitate more games for the TV contract.

However, this skews the fixture and results in many of the extra games being garbage.

A national league should be national, with a minimum of half of the teams not in Victoria. It’s the AFL after all!

Surely we can shave 2 teams off to improve fairness. A serious football league values revenue and fairness.

I would rather shave off four to have 14 teams with 6 Victorian teams.

The best way to even up the fixtures is decentralisation and that requires losing small Victorian clubs.

However, this needs to include revenue optimisation.

I have stated earlier that the only way to achieve fixture fairness and revenue optimisation is the big Victorian and Interstate together.

The revenue comes from:
Big Victorian v Big Interstate
Big Victorian v Big Victorian
Big Interstate v Big Interstate

This compensates:
Big Victorian v Small Interstate

Fixture fairness is via more true home games for Big Victorian clubs.

The key to success is encouraging supporters of small Victorian clubs to move to Big Victorian. Children tend to start with the big clubs anyway and they effectively cannibalise the small Victorian over time.

Too many teams is ruining the league.
 
Virgin Dog said:
Not that I think it would ever happen, but in the event it did - Would have to be one of the smaller clubs. Melbourne, North Melbourne, St Kilda or Bulldogs.

The Dogs were one of the few clubs to actually turn a profit this year. We're now one of the most asset-rich clubs in the competition, have had numerous consecutive years of profit, have exited pokies so aren't reliant on them for profit, have had a recent flag win and look to be on the rise rather than moving downward. The club is also very popular amongst the African community and does a lot of community work, so I can't see the AFL letting us fail from here. On the downside, we still take a larger than average distribution from the AFL, and our membership base is still relatively small.

In terms of most likely to merge, the Saints are in a pretty bad debt position, although they could turn this around quickly if they continue to improve on-field and can up their membership base. If forced to choose, I'd pick North as most likely
Click to expand...

Doubt it would be Melbourne, they're too heavily linked to the MCC and have very well connected benefactors.

St Kilda is probably in the worst financial position, North in the worst geographic position.

imo North is the only one even remotely likely to relocate, and it would be to Tasmania.
 
Sweet Jesus said:
But is it sustainable? In a national competition, can Victoria really support 10 clubs?
Click to expand...
Yes. Victoria has well over half of all club members and draftees. Melbourne was easily the fastest growing city in Australia before the pandemic, even when considering internal migration only. Once the pandemic is over, it'll return to being a huge magnet for young adults. There is no financial reason to reduce the number of teams there.

I've suggested before that the two least popular Melbourne teams should consider merging, mainly because together they could form another big, powerful, financially secure club rather than being two minnows separately. The problem with that is few people like the idea of merging because it kills off the club identity people have formed emotional connections with. I made this thread to check whether people consider merging, relocating or dropping down to the VFL to be the least worst option, and merging was the least popular outcome by some margin. Relocating is more popular, but I doubt Tasmania would embrace a relocated side and there's nowhere else worth relocating to.

On top of which, there's no imminent financial reason for any club to merge or relocate. North have the smallest membership and revenue, but they have practically no debt. St Kilda is carrying debt, but they turn a significant profit, plus they have plenty of latent support that will start showing up to games now that they've started winning again. Melbourne isn't making an operating profit and has no unified home base, but they make far more money out of their members than other smaller clubs and get good attendances whenever they're contending.

If consolidation had to happen, I'd suggest Melbourne merge with North. They'd train at Arden St, play at the MCG and have a fan base spread across the city.
 
No teams are going only if one collapses due to $$$.

Will that happen, unlikely?

As such, add 2 more teams and play a 19 round H&A competition. Alternate each year home grounds.

We will then have a truly even competition with the draw.

Negatives will be a diluted talent pool and no double-ups of blockbusters but if the AFL was serious about equality then this needs to be considered as an option.

The only issue is the league has dollars as their primary interest and it won't happen any time soon.
 
FootyJunkie said:
I'd like to see the Bulldogs play 4 home games in Ballarat.
1 token game at Whitten Oval against someone like the Suns, but I doubt it will ever happen.
Click to expand...
I'd be okay with maybe 3-4 a year, given we would still have at least half of our other games in Melbourne. Those games will be difficult to get to given I am an Eastern Suburbs supporter. If it ensures our long time viability in the competition (We're in a very strong position at this stage) then I have no major issues with it.
 
Collingwood

They wear Port's colours, Port's Magpie and tried to build their club around Port greats like Buckley, Cahill, Williams, Phillips etc etc. Based on this, it is clear Collingwood want to be Port.

As a lure to Port to merge with Collingwood, the pies will offer the merged entity the right to wear the prison bars. This explains Eddie's resistance to the prison bars, as he knows it's the only thing he can offer of value to Port.
 
Last edited:
Off Tap said:
No teams are going only if one collapses due to $$$.

Will that happen, unlikely?

As such, add 2 more teams and play a 19 round H&A competition. Alternate each year home grounds.

We will then have a truly even competition with the draw.

Negatives will be a diluted talent pool and no double-ups of blockbusters but if the AFL was serious about equality then this needs to be considered as an option.

The only issue is the league has dollars as their primary interest and it won't happen any time soon.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if the AFL makes it a 24 round season even if there were 20 clubs (Play each other once + 5 matches) so that all the Big VIC teams and Interstate Rival teams (Collingwood vs. Richmond)-(Adelaide vs. Port Adelaide) for example play each twice even if its not fair on the other teams for max revenue of more matches being played and more money of broadcasting rights.
 
Sweet Jesus said:
Can Victoria sustain 10 teams?

Is the question unreasonable? I'm not singling out anyone.

You don't think this question has been considered among the AFL executive?
Click to expand...

Hypothetically, one does go. How long before it’s ‘can Victoria sustain 9 teams? There’s always going to be more popular and less popular teams
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dirty Bird
Are non-Victorian teams' fans killing their own clubs?
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
MC Bad Genius
MC Bad Genius
Cmarsh
VFL fans from the 70's and 80's - did you have a SANFL or WAFL team?
2 3
Replies
55
Views
3K
GWT6
G
BACCS
  • Poll
Opinion Do AFL fans all complain about the same things?
2 3
Replies
57
Views
1K
The 747
The 747
B
Milking rusted on fans dry - the AFL business Plan
2 3 4
Replies
90
Views
2K
blaisee
B
C
Merge two clubs to make the ultimate unbeatable team
2
Replies
39
Views
1K
Kane McGoodwin
Kane McGoodwin
108CAM
Fans Running On The Ground After Games - Did The AFL Backflip Its 1990s Ban?
Replies
4
Views
227
gungho
G
Taper
West Coast or Adelaide. Which club has more supporters in Victoria?
Replies
12
Views
866
RonnieRaven
RonnieRaven
Back
Top