Prediction Do you believe the AFL will ever be the same again?

[Turnover]

WA & SA fans sucked it up & have got on with it.
100 year old clubs that still run a VFL business model need to be held to account, & it shouldnt be confused with the expansion clubs - they are separate issues.

Wa and sa suck alright. Victoria is the home of football. U know the Big V? The history of football? You’re welcome.

 

[BlueandGoldforever]

Fully professional playing coach comes to mind - agree the professional era in WA was just starting, clubs pretty much had only a full time club secretary.

Yes. I have seen the first year of contracts of the 35 players signed by the Eagles and a lot of players like John Worsfold, who was just starting his career, earned a whopping $5,000 in his first season.

Guys like Ross Glendinning, who returned from North Melbourne to captain the Eagles, took home the lion’s share.

 

[RUNVS]

I am not sure how practical lists of 35 are. It is not enough, unless the teams are reduced to 16 on the ground and 4 on the bench, and even that is stretching it.

 

[fomoco04]

Wa and sa suck alright. Victoria is the home of football. U know the Big V? The history of football? You’re welcome.

You drive a SS Ute and drink VB don't you

 

[Turnover]

You drive a SS Ute and drink VB don't you

Add winnie blues for the trifecta my sandy friend.

 

[fomoco04]

I am not sure how practical lists of 35 are. It is not enough, unless the teams are reduced to 16 on the ground and 4 on the bench, and even that is stretching it.

I'm personally not adverse to reduced numbers on ground. You could easily drop 1 or 2 and have the effect of the games being more open with reduced congestion.

 

[RUNVS]

I'm personally not adverse to reduced numbers on ground. You could easily drop 1 or 2 and have the effect of the games being more open with reduced congestion.

I am not adverse to trying it either, though I feel like zones are so good these days that reducing numbers by 2 per team on the ground won't have a massive difference.

 

[Turnover]

Yep. Don't understand that mentality at all. It really is pretty sick.

In normal times I would be happy to contribute to keep any club afloat if it was required. Footy just would not be the same if some clubs disappeared.

Having said that, I fully expect my club will have to merge to have any chance to get through this. I think a couple of others will have to as well. Unless a cure to this virus is found in the next couple of months the AFL is going to be financially completely devastated and no club is going to be immune.

Think the saints will be fine, like all clubs. The professionalism and jobs inside clubs will drop significantly. We have enough people in Melbourne to support AFL footy, including ammos and other suburban leagues. However, getting paid a g a game to kick a ton in div2 wrfl days are gone.

 

[Max zero]

I for one welcome the AFL being renamed to the Toyota Collingwood, Richmond and West Coast Football league.

I see bright times ahead!

 

[BringBackTorps]

1. SEN Melb. Radio 24.3

The AFL now owns Docklands Stadium, thus it can use it as collateral. AFAIK, the land & stadium value is c. $1.25 billion. The AFL will be able to obtain very cheap loans to protect & retain all 18 AFL clubs, & 14 AFLW teams.

Docklands will probably bail out the AFL from any serious long term damage. All 18 AFL Clubs & 14 AFLW teams are likely to survive.

The asset that puts the AFL in a much stronger survival position than the NRL

“It might ultimately save the game."

www.sen.com.au

The Age J. Niall 20.3

"Marvel Stadium is not only a valuable asset but it promises future cash flows for parties willing to offer credit. The League is in a strong credit position to access debt (at very low interest rates- my words)".

" Clubs are also examining the equity in their own assets to be able to draw against...".

Marvel Stadium key asset as AFL acts to survive financial calamity

With revenues falling off a cliff due to games being played in front of no crowds the AFL is working on an emergency response.

www.theage.com.au

2. Mr TV Australia 16.3

" Caroline Wilson The Age Reporting Seven and Foxtel set to agree on 2 year extension of the AFL Broadcast Rights".

(The quantum was not stated- but the MSM recently announced the AFL was seeking a continuation of the current Rights' $418m pa, + CPI increase).

sportsindustry (@footyindustryAU) | Twitter

The latest Tweets from sportsindustry (@footyindustryAU): "News Wrap | Friday, May 8th | WA AFL teams miss out on home games early, India still plan on coming to Australia, Kayo subs take a 30% hit, RA solvency questions https://t.co/ZI3V1TYArR"

twitter.com

(Go to Sports Industry tweet 16.3, then click on "Mr TV Australia")



3. It appears the AFL will suffer much less, long term damage, than other Aust. sports, due to covid-19.
Will the AFL be in a relative long term competitive advantage, compared to other Aust. pro sports?
Will Grassroots AF now have a relative advantage compared to other Aust. GR sports?

 

[Blackhawk42]

So many dramatic theories in this thread.

I honestly cannot see any club not being part of the competition moving forward.

Things that WILL most likely happen well before clubs go under or merge however...


Far less football staff at each club (has already started).
Game time permanently reduced (not a huge fan of this, but it will probably lead to...)
More games a season satisfying the broadcasters.
Less money in the salary cap.
Reduction of list size. (If clubs ran out of players to select from then they top up with players from state leagues for a one-time fee. Essentially this has already started with the mid-season draft. It would almost have a grassroots feel of ringing up a bloke on a Friday night because the team is short of players to field a 2's team).
Less players on the ground to help with the above 2 proposals.
Incentive based contracts for everybody at the resumption of the following season. This way nobody can sit out a whole season with an injury and still pull in $800k plus. Also means the star players constantly have $$$ to play for and never feel complacent with their deal. Doesn't happen often, but when it does it looks ugly (Nick Malceski at the Suns).


All of these are quite major, but would be on the table before the abolishment of any existing team in my opinion.

Yes, this entire situation is unprecedented, but it doesn't mean the recovery can't be as well, in all levels of society.

 

[fomoco04]

I am not adverse to trying it either, though I feel like zones are so good these days that reducing numbers by 2 per team on the ground won't have a massive difference.

Only downside I see is it will possible move the game even more towards run run run. Meaning your bigger key position players may become redundant. But they do say the bigger players don't get any smaller the longer the game goes on.

Will certainly be interesting to see what comes out the other end of this.

 

[Hawkie_McHawkHawk]

So many dramatic theories in this thread.

I honestly cannot see any club not being part of the competition moving forward.

Things that WILL most likely happen well before clubs go under or merge however...


Far less football staff at each club (has already started).
Game time permanently reduced (not a huge fan of this, but it will probably lead to...)
More games a season satisfying the broadcasters.
Less money in the salary cap.
Reduction of list size. (If clubs ran out of players to select from then they top up with players from state leagues for a one-time fee. Essentially this has already started with the mid-season draft. It would almost have a grassroots feel of ringing up a bloke on a Friday night because the team is short of players to field a 2's team).
Less players on the ground to help with the above 2 proposals.
Incentive based contracts for everybody at the resumption of the following season. This way nobody can sit out a whole season with an injury and still pull in $800k plus. Also means the star players constantly have $$$ to play for and never feel complacent with their deal. Doesn't happen often, but when it does it looks ugly (Nick Malceski at the Suns).


All of these are quite major, but would be on the table before the abolishment of any existing team in my opinion.

Yes, this entire situation is unprecedented, but it doesn't mean the recovery can't be as well, in all levels of society.

Only part I disagree with is the performance based contract when it comes to injury. I can’t see how the players association would ever allow this- football has far too many injuries these days and players regularly sit out full seasons, see TM, Brownlow medalist one month out a full season the next (thereabouts)

 

[Minidisc MD]

Anyone else actually quite excited by the game losing its complete professionalism?

lists of 35 will condense the talent. I imagine most clubs will have a supplementary list playing in state leagues or even better, be able to promote a dozen players from wherever they want throughout the year. basically one-off, game-based payments. we could see some cool stories of guys coming down from the bush like the old days, but we'll also see the right players come into the mix: if you could bring in a Marlion Pickett or give a game to a list clogger, it's going to result in higher standards and more on the line.

also, we don't need 10 full-time coaches at every club. I can honestly see one full-time coach on $200,000-a-year with maybe one assistant on 50 and the rest part-time as a big plus. I can see less bullshitty tactics come in that just stodge up the game and more classic, using your players for what they've got-type footy.

also, the amount of entitled little shits who are currently getting around is absurd.

these guys who swan around the city every weekend, who have been on a list for five years but managed 15 games, sitting on $160,000 a year is just ludicrous. an insult to the working man but further more, most of these private schooled little shits feel entitled to it after years of being told "son, you're gonna make it!" what's the imperative to bust your guts at training? to say no to that piss up? nothing. you get rid of that, and again, there's standards that come in.

...can also see a big big drop in the frankly appalling and disrespectful 'mental illness' card too.

so long as we can keep every historical club, bring it on I say.

 

[RUNVS]

Anyone else actually quite excited by the game losing its complete professionalism?

lists of 35 will condense the talent. I imagine most clubs will have a supplementary list playing in state leagues or even better, be able to promote a dozen players from wherever they want throughout the year. basically one-off, game-based payments. we could see some cool stories of guys coming down from the bush like the old days, but we'll also see the right players come into the mix: if you could bring in a Marlion Pickett or give a game to a list clogger, it's going to result in higher standards and more on the line.

also, we don't need 10 full-time coaches at every club. I can honestly see one full-time coach on $200,000-a-year with maybe one assistant on 50 and the rest part-time as a big plus. I can see less bullshitty tactics come in that just stodge up the game and more classic, using your players for what they've got-type footy.

also, the amount of entitled little shits who are currently getting around is absurd.

these guys who swan around the city every weekend, who have been on a list for five years but managed 15 games, sitting on $160,000 a year is just ludicrous. an insult to the working man but further more, most of these private schooled little shits feel entitled to it after years of being told "son, you're gonna make it!" what's the imperative to bust your guts at training? to say no to that piss up? nothing. you get rid of that, and again, there's standards that come in.

...can also see a big big drop in the frankly appalling and disrespectful 'mental illness' card too.

so long as we can keep every historical club, bring it on I say.

I think the AFL could comfortably halve the football department cap, make it a hard cap as well, and no one would notice the difference, at least not on the field.

 

[Minidisc MD]

re: mergers and acquisitions.

wait, wrong tab, *in working from home...

but nah, I can see the Giants staying – going alright on the field, some strong clubs, and most importantly a bigger TV pool and I guess stronger potential (though let's be honest, if the Western Sydney Wanderers in the football are going backwards, the Giants'll never be a real magnet). would love to see the Suns going though. starting right is so important. Fremantle ruined their future with their initial ten years and if it weren't for Freo being the home of WA footy and all that brings, they'd be kaput. Gold Coast going would be great.

I would be shattered to see any historical club go and I suppose that includes Port Adelaide. history is intangible but so important. I think people forget how some of the oldest things in what we now know as Australia are football clubs. some of the oldest in the world. Fitzroy were annexed. that was pure evil. you can't let it all be pissed away, no matter their fan base percentages in think tank marketing rooms or how barren the cabinets are.

if a club like St Kilda cannot compete and will only kill itself attempting to, it should resign itself to what could be a good little suburban competition in the VFL. let them sort their issues, concrete some assets, and most importantly stay true to its supporters. without fans, you're ****ed. the AFL forget that. in 5-10 years, you can very easily readmit them to the professional AFL. those morons up in the NRL did it with the South Sydney Rabbitohs – I would truly hope we could salvage St Kilda or whoever in the same way.

 

[Minidisc MD]

I think the AFL could comfortably halve the football department cap, make it a hard cap as well, and no one would notice the difference, at least not on the field.

I agree. it takes the piss. all these guys in advisory roles, 'player liaison manager,' even having a dietician every day at the club... it's just spending money because that other club also did. it's gotten to a ludicrous level. all these ex-players who don't want to suck eggs like the rest of us shifting in 55k nothing roles is really not needed. at all.

can see the same thing happening in the media too... the pain...

 

[RUNVS]

I agree. it takes the piss. all these guys in advisory roles, 'player liaison manager,' even having a dietician every day at the club... it's just spending money because that other club also did. it's gotten to a ludicrous level. all these ex-players who don't want to suck eggs like the rest of us shifting in 55k nothing roles is really not needed. at all.

can see the same thing happening in the media too... the pain...

The amount of ex-Swans in the coaching panel at the Swans is suspicious, especially since there seems to be a regular rotation of them as well. They retire, spend a few years as coached with ill-defined roles and then disappear.

 

[Roscoe]

Merge some Victorian teams.
North and st Kilda

What about Essendon merging with Bulldogs?

 

[RUNVS]

What about Essendon merging with Bulldogs?

Western Bombers makes sense actually since in WW2 generally speaking the bombers did come from the west.

 

[Boomerfan99]

I think everyone would agree that 9 clubs in Melbourne really is too many in terms of population. I think it is something like

Victoria - 1 club per 630,000 people.
Western Australia - 1 club per 1.3 million people
South Australia - 1 club per 840,000 people
New South Wales - 1 club per 3.7 million people
Queensland - 1 club per 2.5 million people

Really the ratio for South Australia is too low as well as ideally you would want at least 1 club per million people.

Convert that to number of AFL fans/club and stats are very different. Certainly not 5 million AFL fans in QLD.

 

[RUNVS]

Convert that to number of AFL fans/club and stats are very different. Certainly not 5 million AFL fans in QLD.

Doesn't matter. It is all about potential fans, growing the game, and clearly the Victorian market is saturated beyond healthy levels.

 

[Kwality]

So many dramatic theories in this thread.

I honestly cannot see any club not being part of the competition moving forward.

Things that WILL most likely happen well before clubs go under or merge however...


Far less football staff at each club (has already started).
Game time permanently reduced (not a huge fan of this, but it will probably lead to...)
More games a season satisfying the broadcasters.
Less money in the salary cap.
Reduction of list size. (If clubs ran out of players to select from then they top up with players from state leagues for a one-time fee. Essentially this has already started with the mid-season draft. It would almost have a grassroots feel of ringing up a bloke on a Friday night because the team is short of players to field a 2's team).
Less players on the ground to help with the above 2 proposals.
Incentive based contracts for everybody at the resumption of the following season. This way nobody can sit out a whole season with an injury and still pull in $800k plus. Also means the star players constantly have $$$ to play for and never feel complacent with their deal. Doesn't happen often, but when it does it looks ugly (Nick Malceski at the Suns).


All of these are quite major, but would be on the table before the abolishment of any existing team in my opinion.

Yes, this entire situation is unprecedented, but it doesn't mean the recovery can't be as well, in all levels of society.

We'll be paying back the money borrowed & that must have an effect.

 

[Aussie in exile]

We'll be paying back the money borrowed & that must have an effect.

And with interest

 

[Coolangatta]

If worst comes to worst, cut Suns and Giants. That's if they have to cut clubs. I don't think they'll need to axe four clubs.