VFL 2026

[MegaA]

But who's fault is that

Not the coaches, if the money is not there neither will be the players. Love for the jumper in stand along clubs is becoming rare with youngsters hardly knowing a thing about stand alone clubs and have no sense of it being a privilege to play for a Port or any other stand alone club.

 

[SeaSide]

Genuine question - is the sale of the REX a financial decision (necessity?) or a social decision to exit Pokies?

Hoping Port can get it together.

Let's hope there's an honest answer here; is Frankston on the slide to oblivion?
I feel all former VFA supporters hope not.
Will the siphoned funds be recouped? I'm sure that all former VFA supporters hope so.
Our clubs are so important to us all.
We (the VFA crew) would like some honest answers.

 

[AussieNick1999]

Let's hope there's an honest answer here; is Frankston on the slide to oblivion?
I feel all former VFA supporters hope not.
Will the siphoned funds be recouped? I'm sure that all former VFA supporters hope so.
Our clubs are so important to us all.
We (the VFA crew) would like some honest answers.

Having spoken to a few of the current board members, there is a lot of confidence that those funds will be recoverable. I've also been told that the missing sum doesn't amount to much.

It's worth mentioning that we did make a profit last season and our home crowds so far have been fairly strong. We also still have Adrian Lloyd here as commercial manager and he's done a tremendous amount of work in bringing in new sponsors.

While I have some early concerns about crowds potentially dropping off if our ordinary form continues, this club has been in far worse situations than this.

 

[Spiny Norman]

Not the coaches, if the money is not there neither will be the players. Love for the jumper in stand along clubs is becoming rare with youngsters hardly knowing a thing about stand alone clubs and have no sense of it being a privilege to play for a Port or any other stand alone club.

The loss of an appreciation for the history of clubs is a real shame. And it doesn't help that the AFL has tried to erase the history of the VFA, to the point of suggesting, via their support of Colin Carter's book from a couple years ago, that it's the VFL/AFL, and not the VFA/VFL, that's a continuation of the pre-1897 VFA. (The quotations Carter relies on show only that individual clubs viewed their own history as continuous - e.g. Carlton considered their VFA premierships/players/etc. as a part of their own club history, which is not even remotely the same as saying that the VFL/AFL is the same league as the pre-1897 VFA. Newspaper reports from the day make clear that the VFL was a new league that broke away from the VFA.) I've wondered if the devaluing of the history of the game is a factor in low crowd numbers as well, though it may not be; personally I was drawn to the VFL out of an interest in the game's history, but that is probably unusual. I do think that people who are fed up with the AFL and the AFL media would make a natural audience for state league footy, since at state level there's no endless media clickbait and fake drama.

 

[bedford]

The loss of an appreciation for the history of clubs is a real shame. And it doesn't help that the AFL has tried to erase the history of the VFA, to the point of suggesting, via their support of Colin Carter's book from a couple years ago, that it's the VFL/AFL, and not the VFA/VFL, that's a continuation of the pre-1897 VFA. (The quotations Carter relies on show only that individual clubs viewed their own history as continuous - e.g. Carlton considered their VFA premierships/players/etc. as a part of their own club history, which is not even remotely the same as saying that the VFL/AFL is the same league as the pre-1897 VFA. Newspaper reports from the day make clear that the VFL was a new league that broke away from the VFA.) I've wondered if the devaluing of the history of the game is a factor in low crowd numbers as well, though it may not be; personally I was drawn to the VFL out of an interest in the game's history, but that is probably unusual. I do think that people who are fed up with the AFL and the AFL media would make a natural audience for state league footy, since at state level there's no endless media clickbait and fake drama.

The AFL media is shocking

 

[MegaA]

The loss of an appreciation for the history of clubs is a real shame. And it doesn't help that the AFL has tried to erase the history of the VFA, to the point of suggesting, via their support of Colin Carter's book from a couple years ago, that it's the VFL/AFL, and not the VFA/VFL, that's a continuation of the pre-1897 VFA. (The quotations Carter relies on show only that individual clubs viewed their own history as continuous - e.g. Carlton considered their VFA premierships/players/etc. as a part of their own club history, which is not even remotely the same as saying that the VFL/AFL is the same league as the pre-1897 VFA. Newspaper reports from the day make clear that the VFL was a new league that broke away from the VFA.) I've wondered if the devaluing of the history of the game is a factor in low crowd numbers as well, though it may not be; personally I was drawn to the VFL out of an interest in the game's history, but that is probably unusual. I do think that people who are fed up with the AFL and the AFL media would make a natural audience for state league footy, since at state level there's no endless media clickbait and fake drama.

Good points made - how different things would have been if the promotion relegation system proposed in the 40s between vfl and vfa eventuated, would have been a game changer and in my opinion for the better. Needless to say such a thing now is out of the question and will never be contemplated in the future.

 

[AussieNick1999]

I personally think the real damage was done when the AFL was created out of the VFL's expansion rather than being created from scratch. If you look at our other national competitions such as the BBL, A-League, AIHL and the NBL, you'll see that they generally comprise 10-14 teams, with only 2-3 of them being based in any one state.

The AFL on the other hand is just a rebrand and expansion of the original VFL, and a majority of teams are still based in Victoria. When you've got nine top-level teams in one city competing for supporters, it doesn't leave a lot of public attention for lower tier clubs. Then you have the AFL butchering this league by merging it with the reserves and creating a huge imbalance between teams, expanding it to the northern states while still calling it a state league, and making no effort to build an enjoyable match day experience to draw in crowds.

SA, WA, Queensland and the Northern Territory can all sustain leagues of varying standards. But ours is wedged between the AFL which is a higher standard and will always draw the most attention, and local footy which generally puts on a much better experience than most VFL teams do.

 

[Adnico26Parker]

 

[bedford]

A tad slow lol

 

[Adnico26Parker]

CLUBS BRACE FOR VFL CHANGE​

CLUBS have been told to plan to pay for a VFL licence in their budgeting for next year as the AFL takes a sharp lens on the second-tier competition.

The League is taking a close look at the state of the competition, which is being led by experienced administrator Geoff Walsh.

There has been a commitment made to retain the current structure of the competition for three years, but with that there are expected to be changes.

AFL clubs were briefed earlier in the season that that would include a return to them paying a licence fee to be involved in the VFL competition.

The VFL has a 22-team competition, comprising all AFL clubs' secondary teams apart from the South and West Australian teams, alongside standalone clubs Frankston, Port Melbourne, Coburg, Sandringham, Southport, Williamstown and Werribee. – Callum Twomey

 

[AussieNick1999]

CLUBS BRACE FOR VFL CHANGE​

CLUBS have been told to plan to pay for a VFL licence in their budgeting for next year as the AFL takes a sharp lens on the second-tier competition.

The League is taking a close look at the state of the competition, which is being led by experienced administrator Geoff Walsh.

There has been a commitment made to retain the current structure of the competition for three years, but with that there are expected to be changes.

AFL clubs were briefed earlier in the season that that would include a return to them paying a licence fee to be involved in the VFL competition.

The VFL has a 22-team competition, comprising all AFL clubs' secondary teams apart from the South and West Australian teams, alongside standalone clubs Frankston, Port Melbourne, Coburg, Sandringham, Southport, Williamstown and Werribee. – Callum Twomey

Source on this? If true this is going to put a majority of Vic standalones in a terrible position.

 

[bedford]

Source on this? If true this is going to put a majority of Vic standalones in a terrible position.

But they said 3 years

 

[Spiny Norman]

Is it possible the licence fee would be a change that just applies to the AFL clubs? There was a report in the Herald Sun near the end of March that I am not currently finding with Google (what I saw at the time was a picture or scan taken from the print edition) that made it sound like it would be only the AFL clubs needing to pay the VFL licence fee. That same article also said the AFL would ideally like a 16-team competition after the 3 years (no Queensland or NSW, which would be good), and since Tassie and the 10 Victorian AFL clubs will keep fielding VFL sides, and there are currently 6 Victorian standalones, that was the concerning part. But it was portraying the idea of AFL clubs paying a VFL licence fee as an attempt to help the standalones, as unlikely as such a thing sounds.

 

[MortlockWatcher]

But they said 3 years

Sounds like the promise is as valuable as an AFL player contract.

 

[AussieNick1999]

Is it possible the licence fee would be a change that just applies to the AFL clubs? There was a report in the Herald Sun near the end of March that I am not currently finding with Google (what I saw at the time was a picture or scan taken from the print edition) that made it sound like it would be only the AFL clubs needing to pay the VFL licence fee. That same article also said the AFL would ideally like a 16-team competition after the 3 years (no Queensland or NSW, which would be good), and since Tassie and the 10 Victorian AFL clubs will keep fielding VFL sides, and there are currently 6 Victorian standalones, that was the concerning part. But it was portraying the idea of AFL clubs paying a VFL licence fee as an attempt to help the standalones, as unlikely as such a thing sounds.

Sounds extremely unlikely that the AFL clubs would agree to pay a licence fee to fund standalone clubs, although it's not as if it would dent their finances much.

Assuming you have 10 Victorian AFL reserves teams (either standalone reserves or affiliations) then Tasmania, and then finally the six current standalones, you'd have 17 teams. If you want an even number of teams then you can explore offering a licence to one of the larger local clubs in Victoria, or setting up a new club in a region that isn't really represented by an AFL club. With 18 teams you would have to add one double-up fixture for each club, so you could either give clubs the option to mutually agree on a "rivalry fixture" or base it on the previous season's ladder positions.

 

[eth-dog]

Sounds extremely unlikely that the AFL clubs would agree to pay a licence fee to fund standalone clubs, although it's not as if it would dent their finances much.

Assuming you have 10 Victorian AFL reserves teams (either standalone reserves or affiliations) then Tasmania, and then finally the six current standalones, you'd have 17 teams. If you want an even number of teams then you can explore offering a licence to one of the larger local clubs in Victoria, or setting up a new club in a region that isn't really represented by an AFL club. With 18 teams you would have to add one double-up fixture for each club, so you could either give clubs the option to mutually agree on a "rivalry fixture" or base it on the previous season's ladder positions.

I think ideally Tasmania aren't in it. Have the 16. The rest can work it out amongst themselves

 

[Spiny Norman]

Sounds extremely unlikely that the AFL clubs would agree to pay a licence fee to fund standalone clubs, although it's not as if it would dent their finances much.

It does seem unlikely. Also seems unlikely the AFL would bother suggesting such a thing. Despite the implication of the article, it seems more likely they're introducing it for all clubs as a way of cutting down the number of standalones.

Assuming you have 10 Victorian AFL reserves teams (either standalone reserves or affiliations) then Tasmania, and then finally the six current standalones, you'd have 17 teams.

Yeah, that's why it's concerning. Can't imagine the AFL would support setting up a new club, either. Bringing in a top club from a local league may be more likely but doesn't sound like it's something they're looking at.

I think ideally Tasmania aren't in it. Have the 16. The rest can work it out amongst themselves

Sounds good. Not sure how Tasmania would be satisfied fielding their reserves side in a Tasmanian state league, but if the AFL can get the Queensland and NSW clubs to accept going back to their own state leagues, or to sign on to some other plan that isn't being in the VFL, perhaps they could manage it with Tassie if they wanted to - the key word being if.

 

[Adnico26Parker]

Source on this? If true this is going to put a majority of Vic standalones in a terrible position.

Cal Twomey from AFL.com.au Insider Trading article this afternoon

Port trio sidelined, Roo gets an offer, mid-season draftees emerge

Check out all the latest trade news from around the League

www.afl.com.au

 

[AussieNick1999]

Cal Twomey from AFL.com.au Insider Trading article this afternoon

Port trio sidelined, Roo gets an offer, mid-season draftees emerge

Check out all the latest trade news from around the League

www.afl.com.au

From the sound of it this sounds less like a shakeup of the current structure and more of a return to the old policy of AFL clubs having to pay a licence fee if they opt to field a standalone reserves team instead of affiliating. To my knowledge none of the unaffilated clubs had to pay a fee at any point since the AFL's takeover.

Personally if it's just the AFL clubs being charged for a license, then it really doesn't concern me. But I would be curious as to where that extra money will go, especially if this condition is placed on the standalone clubs as well. This licence fee would be a much easier pill to swallow if it came with some (legally binding) assurances that the AFL will offer tangible assistance to clubs in need.

 

[bedford]

From the sound of it this sounds less like a shakeup of the current structure and more of a return to the old policy of AFL clubs having to pay a licence fee if they opt to field a standalone reserves team instead of affiliating. To my knowledge none of the unaffilated clubs had to pay a fee at any point since the AFL's takeover.

Personally if it's just the AFL clubs being charged for a license, then it really doesn't concern me. But I would be curious as to where that extra money will go, especially if this condition is placed on the standalone clubs as well. This licence fee would be a much easier pill to swallow if it came with some (legally binding) assurances that the AFL will offer tangible assistance to clubs in need.

I thinks it's to help the standalones

 

[Spiny Norman]

I thinks it's to help the standalones

Hope so, that would be great and also rather a surprise

 

[troybe]

 

[BobbyAxlerod]

The AFL should stop overcomplicating the reserves situation and just do it properly.

Introduce an AFL Reserves comp next season with Tasmania as the 19th team. Fixture it normally, accept the rolling bye, and move on. It’s not a problem, it’s basic scheduling.

At the same time, the current VFL is finished in its current form. It should be stripped back and reconstituted as a proper second-tier VFA-style competition made up of standalone clubs, including Southport. That alone gives you a core ~8 team state league worth protecting and building around.

From there, you actually create a real pyramid instead of the current mess. You selectively invite 4–6 of the strongest, most ambitious local clubs in Victoria (Heidelberg, Strathmore, Balwyn, Wangaratta Rovers, etc.) to step up into a licensed second tier.

Not automatic promotion. Licences. Earn it, sustain it, or get out. If a club is getting belted by 100 points every week after 2–3 years, they drop back to their local league and someone else gets a shot. That’s how you create ambition without destroying clubs.

AFL reserves players should come strictly from elite U18 pathways (TAC Cup / Coates League system). No recycling VFL battlers just to fill lists.

Right now we’ve got a bloated, directionless second-tier system that pleases nobody. This would at least create structure, ambition, and a genuine pathway between local football, state football, and the AFL.

It won’t be perfect, but it’s a hell of a lot more coherent than what exists now.

 

[MortlockWatcher]

Funding and self-interest are the key issues here.

Simply put, the AFL won't fund both an AFL reserves and a "VFA", and they have stated that in the past. The AFL hasn't brought back the AFL reserves yet because they are worried about the cost ... at a time they are spending money trying to break into unrealistic overseas markets instead of putting that money towards an ailing grassroots sector.

Metro clubs won't want to be involved in such a league. They would be much happier playing locally with long-standing rivalries that draw significant revenue. Most would be happy to be big fish in their current ponds. Heidelberg v Strathmore would be far less enticing to Heidelberg supporters than say a Greensborough or North Heidelberg.

Your "VFA" will need a reserves grade - how many reserves players from a club in the south-east will be willing to travel to Werribee or Keilor at significant cost in petrol and do it for nothing when they could be earning a couple of hundred playing locally instead.

When North Ballarat left the VFL, the chances of having country clubs involved went with it.

The football system had the perfect chance to create a proper state league in the 1990s which was to have 12 clubs (8 metro and 4 country) aligned to the TAC Cup clubs. Eight VFA clubs were going to be involved and play seniors and reserves with a TAC Cup club as their Under 18s. The idea was for North Ballarat, Traralgon, one of the Bendigo league clubs and one of the O&M clubs to be aligned to the country TAC clubs so that players statewide had access to the system without having to go to Melbourne to do so.

Self-interest came into play and the AFL clubs knocked the idea on the head, which is why we have the mess that we do now. Everyone wants what is best for them rather than for the game itself and there is no guidance or direction being provided by the AFL and AFL Victoria.

Football administrators have always put self-interest first as well. We have had a couple of occasions since World War II when amalgamation of the VFL and VFA has been put on the table, and even cases of trying to set up the structure of football so that there was promotion and relegation between VFA Second Division and below that a six-division metropolitan-wide competition. Had any of these ideas been implemented, then metropolitan football now would most likely have the same set-up as the English soccer pyramid.

In an ideal world, it would be great to have the AFL reserves and a VFA but unfortunately there are significant hurdles in the way for it to happen and be successful.

 

[dodgyville]

There's more teams than players under most combinations of AFL/AFL Reserves/VFL