20 teams, 19 rounds - Vision for an uncompromised fixture

blktreacle

Club Legend
May 14, 2013
1,715
1,339
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
DENVER BRONCOS
By three teams from each league, i mean say, Port Adelaide, Norwood and Glenelg, from SANFL, Claremont, East Fremantle and East Perth from the WAFL and Hawthorn, Essendon and Carlton from the VFL.

this could potentially make for a relegation system that works also
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Silent Alarm

sack Lyon
Jul 9, 2010
24,175
26,095
AFL Club
Fremantle
Claremont?

Just because they've been successful lately. They have the smallest supporter base in the league. If you were to promote three sides, you'd give them to West Perth, East Perth, and East Fremantle.
 

Gibbke

Premiership Player
Mar 21, 2008
3,559
3,200
FNQ
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
South Launceston, Tassie Tigers
Promotion and relegation would be stupidest path footy could take, and has no relevance to our country in a national sporting comp. It's a relic from an era where sporting teams were amateurs and rivals shared the same tiny country - so great for England, unsuitable for Australia. It's the best way to bury teams into an eternity of poverty, while giving those with more wide ranging potential a stranglehold on the sport itself. In the EPL, only 5-6 teams out of 92+ can win the title in our generation, unless someone else can find themselves a Russion billionaire, and that by soccer standards is an even comp - it's 1 or 2 teams everywhere else...

The only country Australia should ever model themselves on is America, which is exactly what they did in the 1980's when conducting feasability reports on breakaway leagues, on the national comp, on drafting, on the salary cap, on all equalisation measures, on running individual clubs...while the model of franchises isn't exactly the same, since the original VFL sides were just one of the three big leagues, the biggest VFL sides were massive compared to the biggest WA and SA teams, and the rest have become that with involvement in Australia's biggest footy market...the smallest Melbourne side still outsizes four of the custom made expansion teams.

It looks unbalanced, but it's right as it is. A soccer fan should understand rivalry and sustainability - the costs of running promotion and competing with supergiants when you finally crack the big time is wearable there, but a deathknell here, and rivalry is the driving force behind sports fandom...if it wasn't, those soccer comps won by a far superior side with five games left in the season and no finals would be dead in a generation. We have the best of all worlds...
 

blktreacle

Club Legend
May 14, 2013
1,715
1,339
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
DENVER BRONCOS
heres an idea for the melbourne situation: do a Cleveland Browns

in the mid 90's the Browns franchise was moved to Baltimore where they became a new franchise, the Baltimore Ravens. 3 years later the Cleveland Browns franchise was reinstated into the NFL

Why not move Melbourne to Tassie, under a new name, say the tassie devils (creative, i know) then in 3 years time return the Demons to the competition
 

Gibbke

Premiership Player
Mar 21, 2008
3,559
3,200
FNQ
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
South Launceston, Tassie Tigers
Why? Who are the stakeholders, what's the benefit for the AFL, Tassie, Melbourne...? Tasmania gets a broken down vehicle with debts to fix before they can be viable (and money is a big factor in the Tasmanian team discussion), and Melbourne gets to disenfranchise its supporters, with no guarantee that the old Dee members would jump on board the new entity. Haven't Demon supporters put up with enough lately...? Never mind that 19 teams means a bye and no carrot for the tv networks, because there is no tenth game for the weekend unless a twentieth team is admitted...are we at that stage yet...?

The NFL teams are privately owned. Art Modell saw his business opportunity in Baltimore and took it, and the only reason the new Cleveland side is named the Browns is because the city and new franchise actually bought the rights to it off Modell, part of the deal for moving without too much disruption and angst, alongside the guarantee that Cleveland would be one of the new expansion sides to make the NFL a 32 team comp. There are no parallels here...
 

FootyJunkie

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 5, 2005
19,090
9,367
Between the Big Sticks
AFL Club
West Coast
heres an idea for the melbourne situation: do a Cleveland Browns

in the mid 90's the Browns franchise was moved to Baltimore where they became a new franchise, the Baltimore Ravens. 3 years later the Cleveland Browns franchise was reinstated into the NFL

Why not move Melbourne to Tassie, under a new name, say the tassie devils (creative, i know) then in 3 years time return the Demons to the competition

And we though Port Adelaide had an identity crisis.
 

madmug

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 17, 2009
15,317
8,604
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
heres an idea for the melbourne situation: do a Cleveland Browns

in the mid 90's the Browns franchise was moved to Baltimore where they became a new franchise, the Baltimore Ravens. 3 years later the Cleveland Browns franchise was reinstated into the NFL

Why not move Melbourne to Tassie, under a new name, say the tassie devils (creative, i know) then in 3 years time return the Demons to the competition

So Melbourne would then become the 5th club after Fitzroy, Stkilda, Hawthorn & North Melbourne to come looking for money, but has no intention of being part of the community.
When does the flow of busted arse Victorian clubs ripping Tassie off, come to an end?
Its embarrassing for the AFL.
 

blktreacle

Club Legend
May 14, 2013
1,715
1,339
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
DENVER BRONCOS
Why? Who are the stakeholders, what's the benefit for the AFL, Tassie, Melbourne...? Tasmania gets a broken down vehicle with debts to fix before they can be viable (and money is a big factor in the Tasmanian team discussion), and Melbourne gets to disenfranchise its supporters, with no guarantee that the old Dee members would jump on board the new entity. Haven't Demon supporters put up with enough lately...? Never mind that 19 teams means a bye and no carrot for the tv networks, because there is no tenth game for the weekend unless a twentieth team is admitted...are we at that stage yet...?

The NFL teams are privately owned. Art Modell saw his business opportunity in Baltimore and took it, and the only reason the new Cleveland side is named the Browns is because the city and new franchise actually bought the rights to it off Modell, part of the deal for moving without too much disruption and angst, alongside the guarantee that Cleveland would be one of the new expansion sides to make the NFL a 32 team comp. There are no parallels here...

hey, its just an idea
 

The_Wookie

Queenslander
Jul 2, 2010
32,555
30,008
Launceston
AFL Club
Carlton
So Melbourne would then become the 5th club after Fitzroy, Stkilda, Hawthorn & North Melbourne to come looking for money, but has no intention of being part of the community.
When does the flow of busted arse Victorian clubs ripping Tassie off, come to an end?
Its embarrassing for the AFL.
Would it be less embarrassing if Tasmania had zero AFL matches? That might be a realistic option if crowds keep dropping in Launceston
 

Gibbke

Premiership Player
Mar 21, 2008
3,559
3,200
FNQ
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
South Launceston, Tassie Tigers
There would be those who would see it as a good thing. Problem is, the delusion occurs when either side believes there's any sort of ransom factor to it - show up to the games or we cut them off, or give us good games or our own team and we don't boycott. These are viewpoints that have been expressed, but they gloss over the simple raw fact that the Hawks have made a deal with Tasmania that is based upon dollars, not expansion. There's no ripoff occurring, unless someone can provide figures directly contradicting what the local government, the Launceston business community and the Hawks already provide. The complicating factor is the commitment made to stadium upgrades, meaning the government is likely to chase teams to keep playing and paying, other wise it's a bigger debt for the taxpayer. But a home team? Totally different scenario, criteria, financial factors, political support...
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

cos789

Brownlow Medallist
Suspended
Feb 19, 2004
10,500
451
Sunset Coast
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Subiaco
Many people, like myself, want to see the AFL's philosophy towards the fixture altered dramatically such that the main priority becomes fairness,
Why do people keep fixating on fixtures as the only measure of fairness?

The draw will never be fair, because teams performances change over a short period of time.
half the teams don't have to travel every week.
It's not fair that teams don't start with the same resources.
They have different coaches, facilities , staff , incomes, expenses , sponsors, debts etc.
FFS they do even have they same players - is that fair?
And somebody wins and most lose - so is that fair?
 

cos789

Brownlow Medallist
Suspended
Feb 19, 2004
10,500
451
Sunset Coast
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Subiaco

cos789

Brownlow Medallist
Suspended
Feb 19, 2004
10,500
451
Sunset Coast
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Subiaco
I think the AFL set up was wrong from the begining.
Because the AFL evolved from the VFL which had sucked Australia dry in exactly the same way as
the NRL evolved from the NSWRL which had sucked Qld dry.
If Australian Football had got together and said "how can we address the problem of players moving to the VFL" then there could have been a different approach.
The further you go back in history the closer the leagues become and it might have been possible having some sort of national competition with promotion/relegation. But a big might.
I think there was always going to be an emphasis on having VFL standard clubs in the AFL.
As such I think the only club likely to have been admitted (outside of the VFL) would be PA and IMO the other clubs would have come from alignments of four local clubs. eg North and South Perth.
However the case for Tasmanian team would have been much stronger then and even a Sydney and Brisbane team would have worked.
The problem has been the growing disparagement betweenthe first and second tier clubs.
Funnily (or not) this is a problem with some overseas leagues where new teams with poor skills find they are unable to break into the existing league because they are continually flogged and demoralised.
 

General Giant

Hall of Famer
Apr 12, 2012
32,839
24,739
AFL Club
GWS
GC is going OK..
So are we, Financially and off the field(Sponsors media coverage and awareness etc) we are doing very well. Once we start being competitive on the field the crowds will show up. Lets remember this time last year everyone was saying the Suns were going backwards.. We are 1 year behind, we will get there.

But not AFL clubs.
I can see a West Brisbane and Sydney South AFL team..
Please no, 2 teams is fine for Sydney, covers the 2 major regions (north and south include themselves in the east west mentality) and is the main point for rivalries in Sydney. Maybe Newcastle and Sth Coast down the track.
 

Konrad2709

Team Captain
Jun 3, 2012
455
625
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Galloping Ducks, Borussia Dortmund
Has any body thought about a New Zealand football team?

Plus one team I'd love to see happen is an all-Aboriginal football team.. Especially with the influx of Aboriginals and such, I think it would be awesome to witness, just because so many Aboriginal players are some of the best..

I do believe Tasmania could have an AFL team. 500k+ live in that state alone, they could easily play home games at both Hobart and Launceston.
New Zealand team
Although I suspect this is an unpopular opinion, I would love a few NZ teams. One initially, in several years time if the annual game in Wellington is a hit and grass-routes AFL activities are a success. Just like A-League and NRL, a few NZ teams could strengthen our code with more sporting talent, more fans and more tourism spending. NZ is just as far East as Perth is West for the majority of teams.

Plus, it'll get us one step closer to Australia's seventh and eight states. :D Although I shouldn't need a reason, flying over to NZ to watch the footy is a great excuse for a holiday!

Auckland is by far the largest city (only city over 1 Million?), I'm not sure why the AFL isn't garnering interest with exhibition matches there instead of Wellington.

Aboriginal team
As others have said, I think this would be detrimental to unifying our culture and values. Keep Aboriginal only teams in the state leagues to foster interest and development of future players.
At the pinnacle of our code, we shouldn't be putting up any borders around teams.

It also doesn't speak highly of our country when foreigners look at our biggest sporting league and sees we have a 'special' team for Indigenous players.

Tasmania
I agree with Tassy being next.

If we were to expand to 20 teams I would go with:
* 2 new teams
* 1 relocation (from a Victorian club)

to:
* Tassy
* Auckland
* Christchurch (For the South Islanders, I'm not sure if North vs South is a cultural rivalry?!)
- Christchurch being the 3rd biggest city, only 20k behind Wellington.

But in doing so, I would also increase finals to the 'final 10' teams. Yes, the top four usually make it; but I prefer to look at it from a point of view of players, teams and fans. More finals games is exciting for fans, players and teams get finals practice while they're on the way up, teams get more money from playing them.
 

madmug

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 17, 2009
15,317
8,604
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
New Zealand team
Although I suspect this is an unpopular opinion, I would love a few NZ teams. One initially, in several years time if the annual game in Wellington is a hit and grass-routes AFL activities are a success. Just like A-League and NRL, a few NZ teams could strengthen our code with more sporting talent, more fans and more tourism spending. NZ is just as far East as Perth is West for the majority of teams.

Plus, it'll get us one step closer to Australia's seventh and eight states. :D Although I shouldn't need a reason, flying over to NZ to watch the footy is a great excuse for a holiday!

Auckland is by far the largest city (only city over 1 Million?), I'm not sure why the AFL isn't garnering interest with exhibition matches there instead of Wellington.

Aboriginal team
As others have said, I think this would be detrimental to unifying our culture and values. Keep Aboriginal only teams in the state leagues to foster interest and development of future players.
At the pinnacle of our code, we shouldn't be putting up any borders around teams.

It also doesn't speak highly of our country when foreigners look at our biggest sporting league and sees we have a 'special' team for Indigenous players.

Tasmania
I agree with Tassy being next.

If we were to expand to 20 teams I would go with:
* 2 new teams
* 1 relocation (from a Victorian club)

to:
* Tassy
* Auckland
* Christchurch (For the South Islanders, I'm not sure if North vs South is a cultural rivalry?!)
- Christchurch being the 3rd biggest city, only 20k behind Wellington.

But in doing so, I would also increase finals to the 'final 10' teams. Yes, the top four usually make it; but I prefer to look at it from a point of view of players, teams and fans. More finals games is exciting for fans, players and teams get finals practice while they're on the way up, teams get more money from playing them.

Sad to say but I think Christchurch would be on shaky ground regards having an AFL team. I dont know why so many BF get so excited about the prospect on an NZ team, but are so negative about GWS?
I think they would present much the same problems to become established.
It would take a LOT of money, it will take a long time to break down cultural resistance to a foreign code & it will take a LOT of money:p
Most of that sort of money is tied up with GWS for another decade or so.
IMO it should be a 3rd WA & a Tas team first. With two less Victorian teams to keep it to 18 teams.
 

Konrad2709

Team Captain
Jun 3, 2012
455
625
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Galloping Ducks, Borussia Dortmund
Sad to say but I think Christchurch would be on shaky ground regards having an AFL team. I dont know why so many BF get so excited about the prospect on an NZ team, but are so negative about GWS?
I think they would present much the same problems to become established.
It would take a LOT of money, it will take a long time to break down cultural resistance to a foreign code & it will take a LOT of money:p
Most of that sort of money is tied up with GWS for another decade or so.
IMO it should be a 3rd WA & a Tas team first. With two less Victorian teams to keep it to 18 teams.
I'm sure a NZer can correct me, but the main reason Christchurch crumbled so easily was due to it not being declared a quake zone and it had a hidden fault line, resulting in most buildings not being built to quake-standard. So long as the ground was built to appropriate quake standards, no problems. I'm sure Christchurch would appreciate the extra tourism monies. A lot of NZ is already an established quake zone, but buildings are built accordingly.

I am only negative about GWS because I think Tassy deserved one first and the AFL were obviously trying to encroach on rugby territory.

Yes it'll take a lot of coin to invest in NZ, but the AFL have already started the grass-roots movement at schools, clubs are scouting for talent there, we now have a H&A game held there, we have a fairly similar culture, they already have appropriate grounds (cricket grounds). The AFL are clearly showing serious interest and investment.

Personally, I think two per WA/SA/Qld are enough, maybe one more in NSW, but Newcastle or somewhere away from Sydney (Sutherlands?). A max of one for Tassy, Canberra and NT and 2-3 for NZ. Either that comes at the cost of Vic teams or the AFL starts looking at a two-teir premier comp, 12 teams each with relegation between the first and second tier. That way we get the reduced finals series (6 teams) in the first tier without ignoring more than 50% of the tier; there are less 'bye' games, as the crappest teams are relegated and the strongest second tier given a chance. It also means those crapper teams get a chance to redevelop their lists against non-power-house sides and give their players are better chance (moral, getting experience in a young side, etc).

Although I just thought of this on the spot and I'm 'typing out loud', so I'm sure there are many negatives I haven't thought of. The AFL would have to keep both tiers in the lime light to ensure sponsorship and memberships stay healthy, but I can still see the top 8-10 teams becoming power-housey. However that is what the AFL actively try and prevent, using things such as salary caps and the draft.

I always thought there were issues with relegation to the current state leagues, but if the AFL managed a two tier comp... it *could* work... maybe. The added advantage would also be that if there were 12 teams in your tier, you'd play 22 games... home and away versus each side, making a fair fixture.

More teams - win
More games overall - win
Same games per team - win (for the players)
More money - win
Fair fixture - win
Less 'bye' games - win
Better chance for developing teams to fight among themselves - win
The top 8-10 teams could distance themselves from the rest - loss
The sponsors and members could jump ship if a team relegated to the second tier - loss (but they're not true supporters/members anyway)
 

Gibbke

Premiership Player
Mar 21, 2008
3,559
3,200
FNQ
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
South Launceston, Tassie Tigers
A lesser known fact of English soccer is that a demoted team from the Premier League gets a huge payout in order for their team not to be utterly destroyed by relegation. Many of you don't have to think of this, as Reds, City, Arsenal, Man U, whatever supporters, but this Wolves fan and his English bro-in-law get to see the slippery slide all the time...the cleanout when a team gets demoted is very traumatic for the team, when the costly superstar jumps ship to someone better in order to ply his trade in a comp worth his time and effort, when the fans walk away in droves because its full home and away against Colchester, Stevenage and whoever instead of the juggernauts, when the teams have to find some way to maintain huge EPL stadium redevelopment costs with an income and gates that are severely diminished...the payment goes some way to soften the blow...

Promotion and relegation has absolutely no place in Australian national competitions. The cramped, densely populated Euro nations can handle it - Australia can't. No tiers = no tears...
 

madmug

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 17, 2009
15,317
8,604
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
I'm sure a NZer can correct me, but the main reason Christchurch crumbled so easily was due to it not being declared a quake zone and it had a hidden fault line, resulting in most buildings not being built to quake-standard. So long as the ground was built to appropriate quake standards, no problems. I'm sure Christchurch would appreciate the extra tourism monies. A lot of NZ is already an established quake zone, but buildings are built accordingly.

I am only negative about GWS because I think Tassy deserved one first and the AFL were obviously trying to encroach on rugby territory.

I still think WA should have 3 teams. Its a real AFL town with 1.9million people, WA has 2.5million. SA has 1.6 million with Adelaide at 1.3 million. Victoria has 5.6 million with Melbourne at 4.2 million. I think that stacks up well for Perth to have 3 clubs.
Give Tassie a team, to keep me happy:p
 

Gigantor

Brownlow Medallist
May 13, 2012
14,736
4,767
AFL Club
GWS
Other Teams
Brumbies, Socceroos
20 teams seems a lot at the moment
no P & R
20 rounds sounds nice - but far too short - AFL will not drop the number of rounds
 

Top Bottom