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

Remove this Banner Ad

Carringbush2010

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
10,447
6,543
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
as long as there are teams and matches all over the country - and there are - it doesnt really matter if there are more in one place than any other. And why cant the league act in the interest of its constituent clubs in the first place? If the league can afford it why would they want to get rid of clubs? This reasoning has never made any damn sense.
I'm not disagreeing with you, seems there's many that would though. I'm not the one you need to convince
 

Papa G

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 13, 2006
25,493
51,910
The Bitter End
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
8 is the right number for Victoria.

The 2 expendable clubs would be North and Melbourne.

Neither represent a significant side/area/sector of Melbourne suburbia. Neither have much growth potential. Neither have natural rivalries. Neither have much profile.

If the goal is a real representative national league (which it probably isn't) you could push North to maybe Canberra and tap into that Riverina area over the longer term, put in a stand alone Tasmanian team and hope Melbourne's largely aged and small supporter base seep to Hawthorn or St Kilda.
 

nick1408

Club Legend
Dec 12, 2010
1,584
1,549
Why?
AFL Club
Richmond
... snip ...

That said, there is little geographic discrimination in English football. Much of this is due to the fact they have the FA above it. The FA are useless at many things but just saw off a power grab where the big teams tried to grab control of the Premier League.

The biggest problem in Australian Rules is that the AFL now run the game as well as the league and this is a massive conflict of interest. A national body could sit the AFL down and say “this is too Victorian centric and too focused on big Victorian teams revenue and small Victorian teams survival and it’s killing the standard, fixture and fairness.”

Can we agree that we need change? This league isn’t elite as it has too many Victorian teams reducing the quality and compromising the fixture.
You raise a few good points here. I'll start by correcting one point though - Project Big Picture was voted down by the clubs. The clubs didn't want to lose the power they have in the Premier League The FA doesn't really get too much of a say in how the Premier League is run although it does have veto powers in certain circumstances.

Anyway, to keep with the Premier League theme, if Brentford and Millwall (won't happen but Watford is outside London - just!) promote this year at the expense of Sheffield and West Brom does this suddenly mean the Premier League is no longer as elite because there are two more clubs from London and two less from the rest of England and Wales? While there isn't a possibility to promote and relegate in the AFL the point still stands that geographical locations of clubs doesn't dictate the quality of the league. This is probably moreso in Australia due to the draft distributing players around the country.

Herein lies the next problem. If the bulk of new draftees come from Victoria I feel the bulk of the 'go home factor' also happens to Victorians. If there are less clubs in Victoria to distribute these players when they want to come home isn't it possible that by rationalising clubs that it could inadvertently create 'super clubs'? I will admit that is a long bow to draw but it does need to be a consideration before we actually get rid of clubs. I've seen a few arguments of clubs per capita but I think the proper way to make this argument would be clubs per Australian Rules players (not AFL players).

Do we need change? I'm not sure. I haven't seen a really good argument for huge change. Realistically all I'd like to see is a proper home and away fixture but if that doesn't come I don't think it makes the league anymore or less elite just as more or less clubs doesn't change if the league is elite:

elite
noun
a select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society.
"the elite of Britain's armed forces"


I'd say the 0.0032% of the population that play in the AFL meets the definition of elite.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Carringbush2010

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
10,447
6,543
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
You're kind of wrong and right at the same time, I'm talking about the 2020 GF in isolation. Take that out and I can't really argue your point.

The 2020 GF was at Freo oval, they only sold 10k tickets because of Covid, initially the number was lower. I'm not sure how they could have fit much more than 10k in tbh. But the demand was there for more tickets.
It was kind of an odd occasion tbh. Tight game, quiet crowd till the last few minutes.

Fwiw, South Freo are probably the most analagous team to Collingwood in th old WAFL. Huge following in back in the day, similar temperament, fan background, similarly passionate. Punchy when their team is losing.
I don't disagree re the WAFL gf, the discussion is pointless when talking about culling, merging or relocating vic clubs. Which is what a lot of non vic club fans want coz 'fair'.

Well the members of those 'targeted' clubs will say a big f u when the club consults them. The only way to rid of clubs is insolvency, HQ are determined they survive.

So for those that wish for less vic clubs, guess what, you ain't gettin what you want.

So for now either suck it up or enjoy your misery, that's what it really boils down to.
 

mcfazza28

Debutant
Jul 16, 2011
113
150
London
AFL Club
West Coast
You raise a few good points here. I'll start by correcting one point though - Project Big Picture was voted down by the clubs. The clubs didn't want to lose the power they have in the Premier League The FA doesn't really get too much of a say in how the Premier League is run although it does have veto powers in certain circumstances.

Anyway, to keep with the Premier League theme, if Brentford and Millwall (won't happen but Watford is outside London - just!) promote this year at the expense of Sheffield and West Brom does this suddenly mean the Premier League is no longer as elite because there are two more clubs from London and two less from the rest of England and Wales? While there isn't a possibility to promote and relegate in the AFL the point still stands that geographical locations of clubs doesn't dictate the quality of the league. This is probably moreso in Australia due to the draft distributing players around the country.

Herein lies the next problem. If the bulk of new draftees come from Victoria I feel the bulk of the 'go home factor' also happens to Victorians. If there are less clubs in Victoria to distribute these players when they want to come home isn't it possible that by rationalising clubs that it could inadvertently create 'super clubs'? I will admit that is a long bow to draw but it does need to be a consideration before we actually get rid of clubs. I've seen a few arguments of clubs per capita but I think the proper way to make this argument would be clubs per Australian Rules players (not AFL players).

Do we need change? I'm not sure. I haven't seen a really good argument for huge change. Realistically all I'd like to see is a proper home and away fixture but if that doesn't come I don't think it makes the league anymore or less elite just as more or less clubs doesn't change if the league is elite:

elite
noun
a select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society.
"the elite of Britain's armed forces"


I'd say the 0.0032% of the population that play in the AFL meets the definition of elite.
Awesome post:
- Thanks for the Big Picture correction
- I support a small London club and don’t feel we really belong as we are too small
- I agree geographic shouldn’t affect quality when drafts are involved
- Geography majorly affects fair fixtures when ground sharing happens (imagine if Chelsea, Tottenham, Arsenal and West Ham shared Wembley and played 22 games at home)
- Fixture fairness is my central wish
 

mcfazza28

Debutant
Jul 16, 2011
113
150
London
AFL Club
West Coast
You raise a few good points here. I'll start by correcting one point though - Project Big Picture was voted down by the clubs. The clubs didn't want to lose the power they have in the Premier League The FA doesn't really get too much of a say in how the Premier League is run although it does have veto powers in certain circumstances.

Anyway, to keep with the Premier League theme, if Brentford and Millwall (won't happen but Watford is outside London - just!) promote this year at the expense of Sheffield and West Brom does this suddenly mean the Premier League is no longer as elite because there are two more clubs from London and two less from the rest of England and Wales? While there isn't a possibility to promote and relegate in the AFL the point still stands that geographical locations of clubs doesn't dictate the quality of the league. This is probably moreso in Australia due to the draft distributing players around the country.

Herein lies the next problem. If the bulk of new draftees come from Victoria I feel the bulk of the 'go home factor' also happens to Victorians. If there are less clubs in Victoria to distribute these players when they want to come home isn't it possible that by rationalising clubs that it could inadvertently create 'super clubs'? I will admit that is a long bow to draw but it does need to be a consideration before we actually get rid of clubs. I've seen a few arguments of clubs per capita but I think the proper way to make this argument would be clubs per Australian Rules players (not AFL players).

Do we need change? I'm not sure. I haven't seen a really good argument for huge change. Realistically all I'd like to see is a proper home and away fixture but if that doesn't come I don't think it makes the league anymore or less elite just as more or less clubs doesn't change if the league is elite:

elite
noun
a select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society.
"the elite of Britain's armed forces"


I'd say the 0.0032% of the population that play in the AFL meets the definition of elite.
One bit I forgot-
Super clubs are here already. We both support one
 

The_Wookie

Queenslander
Jul 2, 2010
33,461
31,232
Scamander
AFL Club
Carlton
I will tell you what, and this is just my opinion, could be bullshit.

If 7 had a say of which club they would rather in the AFL out of Melbourne or Port, i am betting they say Melbourne.
On which figures might that be based. Im betting they arent tv ratings.

***edit - read this wrong lol.
 
Last edited:

Bjo187

Debutant
Apr 30, 2020
149
213
AFL Club
Essendon
The two smallest supporter bases in the melbourne clubs are:
1. North
2. Bulldogs

I actually feel as though the bulldogs have more value than melbourne as they have limited potential to capture melbournes western suburbs. That being said, people don't tend to support clubs on geographical areas anymore, as teams don't have home grounds in their suburbs. So it means the big teams will continue to get bigger and the smaller ones won't increase.
Melbourne are only saved by their name really, if they were called the kew demons they would have likely been merged or relocated years ago.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

LoungeLizard

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 15, 2009
9,374
7,544
gippsland
AFL Club
Collingwood
Each year the deadbeats who run Channel 7 Melbourne tend to give one of the Vic minnows a decent run on prime time FTA. 2019 was Melbourne's chance based on 2018 promise.
I'm still guessing Melbourne would be preferred over Port.

Let's look at it another way, Richmond, Essendon, Collingwood etc. v
Melbourne, would rate way higher than those same clubs v Port.
 

Papa G

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 13, 2006
25,493
51,910
The Bitter End
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
The two smallest supporter bases in the melbourne clubs are:
1. North
2. Bulldogs

I actually feel as though the bulldogs have more value than melbourne as they have limited potential to capture melbournes western suburbs. That being said, people don't tend to support clubs on geographical areas anymore, as teams don't have home grounds in their suburbs. So it means the big teams will continue to get bigger and the smaller ones won't increase.
Melbourne are only saved by their name really, if they were called the kew demons they would have likely been merged or relocated years ago.
Bulldogs have more supporters that actually rock up, more heart, more personality, represent a genuine region of Melbourne and more growth potential.
 

mcfazza28

Debutant
Jul 16, 2011
113
150
London
AFL Club
West Coast
I'm still guessing Melbourne would be preferred over Port.

Let's look at it another way, Richmond, Essendon, Collingwood etc. v
Melbourne, would rate way higher than those same clubs v Port.
The really interesting point you raise is Commercial viability.

Richmond v St Kilda viewing versus Richmond v West Coast viewing.

Richmond v Melbourne viewing versus
Richmond v Port viewing

I want fairness and know there are commercial impacts in the short term whilst any change happened.
 

nick1408

Club Legend
Dec 12, 2010
1,584
1,549
Why?
AFL Club
Richmond
Awesome post:
- Thanks for the Big Picture correction
- I support a small London club and don’t feel we really belong as we are too small
Someone has to be small though. If (for argument's sake) four of the smallest Victorian clubs are dropped then there are still small clubs, they are just bigger than who got let go. It's relative for what we can see.
- I agree geographic shouldn’t affect quality when drafts are involved
- Geography majorly affects fair fixtures when ground sharing happens (imagine if Chelsea, Tottenham, Arsenal and West Ham shared Wembley and played 22 games at home)
I'm not sure I follow what you are saying when you say sharing grounds affects fair fixtures. Tottenham played out of Wembley from 2016-2019 and won a grand total of zero trophies. They got done twice (once by Chelsea, once by United) in the FA Cup in the semis held at Wembley. The apparent ground advantage meant nothing to them.

There's a stadium in Milan that hosts two teams (Inter and AC Milan) but that sharing of grounds hasn't helped them. Some small team from Turin keeps winning titles for fun. Of course it's hard to compare as money has a lot of say here.

- Fixture fairness is my central wish
One bit I forgot-
Super clubs are here already. We both support one
I think rationalising teams is the wrong way to be looking at this. I'd actually be expanding then play everyone once. 23-24 teams feels too much to me (who am I to say how many teams is correct?) but to hold back Tasmania setting up a new team seems wrong to me. It also means one less double up in the current fixture format. There has been whispers Perth would like a third team - go for it! Again, one less double up. NT? Ultimate home ground advantage. Give them a side. I mean, I'm really spitballing about where teams could go but I think you understand the point I'm putting across.

West Coast and Richmond may be 'super clubs' right now but remember Richmond not so long ago were the poor team people wouldn't have minded dropping out. Poorly run, barely financial, poor on the field. The only difference between Richmond and Fitzroy was Richmond still had a home base at Punt Road. If Richmond falls of the perch again players like Tom Lynch won't want to come. they would have eight other clubs to choose from now. Clubs in other states don't have the competition for the go home factor but there is a lot less people trying to get to those clubs too purely from the amount of kids in the system from those states. West Coast won't lose their status if they become poor (I don't think). Either way, neither are superclubs on the field.
 

Rimmer

Club Legend
May 7, 2008
1,577
1,999
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Considering 2020 was a once-in-a-hundred-year event I am not sure what this is meant to achieve. I don't think Sydney president Andrew Pridham's ongoing annoyance at the loss of COLA is likely to be the trigger for major changes. (this supposedly is one of the triggers for this review).

You cannot judge anything on the basis of the 2020 Covid year. The AFL may be a bit top-heavy with a rather large bureaucracy but this seems to have been manageable until now. Apparently 'hundred's of jobs were gone in a matter of week's' when the AFL cut 20% of staff ... hundreds of jobs ...


I would be in favour of letting Steven Hocking go before he completely changes the game beyond recognition. Some good things I agree but when will he ever be satisfied.
 

JayJ20

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 28, 2016
13,819
19,305
AFL Club
Essendon
Not if the league was:
Carlton
Collingwood
Richmond
Essendon
Hawthorn
Geelong
Sydney
GWS
Brisbane
Gold Coast
Adelaide
Port Adelaide
West Coast
Fremantle

Melbourne still has 5 teams which is 3 more than any other city. E.g Perth 2m with 2 teams v Melbourne 5m with 5 teams. Seems fair geographically and respects Melbourne as the home of Oz sport with 6 of 14 teams and triple what any other state has.

If we want the volume route go to 20 with 19 rounds and no double ups. Oh and the 2 new teams must be interstate.

I’m flexible
Removing 4 teams means you're losing a lot of football fans for good. Ratings will plummet, which leads to a reduction of broadcast agreement + sponsorship dollars.

Sure most of the remaining teams have a large supporter base, but you'll also have a lot of Bulldogs, Melbourne, North and St Kilda fans watching neutral games. Taking them out has a flow on effect on generations to come. Dumb thing to do.
 

theyellowsash

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 9, 2009
11,388
14,353
Footscray
AFL Club
Richmond
8 is the right number for Victoria.

The 2 expendable clubs would be North and Melbourne.

Neither represent a significant side/area/sector of Melbourne suburbia. Neither have much growth potential. Neither have natural rivalries. Neither have much profile.

If the goal is a real representative national league (which it probably isn't) you could push North to maybe Canberra and tap into that Riverina area over the longer term, put in a stand alone Tasmanian team and hope Melbourne's largely aged and small supporter base seep to Hawthorn or St Kilda.
dont think you can be rid of both north melbourne and melbourne. there needs to be a 'melbourne' team.

saints are the second team in the gun for me. we've been hearing about this mystical growth area in the south east of melbourne for decades, yet theyre still struggling despite having the whole area to themselves.

and the idea that the afl need a club loosely based there is a fallacy. this isnt the 70s, people travel outside of their suburb these days. everyone still needs to go into the city to attend games, and any club can hold membership drives there if they want. suburb locality means nothing anymore. i've barely set foot in richmond let along ever lived there.
 

Johnny Bananas

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 10, 2010
6,589
8,265
A sugar refinery
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Not if the league was:
Carlton
Collingwood
Richmond
Essendon
Hawthorn
Geelong
Sydney
GWS
Brisbane
Gold Coast
Adelaide
Port Adelaide
West Coast
Fremantle
You can wish all you like, it won't happen.

Melbourne still has 5 teams which is 3 more than any other city. E.g Perth 2m with 2 teams v Melbourne 5m with 5 teams. Seems fair geographically and respects Melbourne as the home of Oz sport with 6 of 14 teams and triple what any other state has.
The real world doesn't care what's fair geographically, only what makes money best. If anything Perth should have an extra team without any Melbourne teams being cut, because 1 million per team is too many.
 

greatwhiteshark

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 3, 2007
11,782
11,682
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
West Perth
Considering 2020 was a once-in-a-hundred-year event I am not sure what this is meant to achieve. I don't think Sydney president Andrew Pridham's ongoing annoyance at the loss of COLA is likely to be the trigger for major changes. (this supposedly is one of the triggers for this review).

You cannot judge anything on the basis of the 2020 Covid year. The AFL may be a bit top-heavy with a rather large bureaucracy but this seems to have been manageable until now. Apparently 'hundred's of jobs were gone in a matter of week's' when the AFL cut 20% of staff ... hundreds of jobs ...


I would be in favour of letting Steven Hocking go before he completely changes the game beyond recognition. Some good things I agree but when will he ever be satisfied.


Any group of fans that allows administrators to change rules of the sport as often as the AFL has are a group of fans who don’t care about the sport. AFL fans don’t care about the sport and that is very clear, if they haven’t taken a stand by now and stop funding this league then at what point do you think the tipping point might be, round ball?
The sport has been changed beyond recognition, that was over a decade ago and no one said a word. They don’t care, they think by supporting their club it will help.
Australian Rules Football has been resting in peace for many many years now, it’s why they call it AFL now.
 

ghostbat12

Club Legend
Aug 17, 2009
1,725
1,582
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Bulldogs have more supporters that actually rock up, more heart, more personality, represent a genuine region of Melbourne and more growth potential.
It’s amazing how it’s always the financially strapped clubs always seem to have “more heart”. This is true in other sports too.

As I have said before, it’s not about growth if your own growth is at slower pace than the competition. You will be left behind and that’s why there is a financial issue.

If salary cap was 30% lower, all clubs would be financially well off. But unfortunately you cannot move at pace of slowest club.

We have also hit peak afl. Financial crisis is 2-5 years away from all this money printing being done. If Covid doesn’t finish clubs off, that will.
 

Remove this Banner Ad