AFL 20-team competition

[littleduck]

would any of you be in favour of expanding the AFL to 20-teams and lowering the salary cap to about 5 million to accomodate the 4 additional teams?

10 vic teams - same as now.
10 nonvic teams - same as now + 4 additions

WA: west coast (subiaco), fremantle (subiaco)
SA: adelaide (aami), port adelaide (aami)
NSW: sydney (scg/telstra), western sydney (scg/telstra)
QLD: brisbane (gabba), south east queensland (gabba)
ACT: canberra (manuka)
NZ: new zealand (auckland/wellington)

 

[fearlessone77]

Voss

 

[Chris_Judd]

Never EVER happen.... means you would only have 19 rounds a year... not a bad thing.... but... it means you only play each team once.... Could you imagine the draw Collingwood would get. We'd never see them in Perth.

 

[mik]

its not a bad idea to have teams in canberra where there isnt currently one (apart from kangaroos' few games there)...but, it will just hurt the non-victorian teams more..clubs like collingwood and essendon would have more home games , and non-victorian clubs would have to travel more than they already do...

the only changes that should even be considered, is to make it 44 games ( i know it is too much for the players), playing every team twice (home and away)..untill then, many victorian clubs will continue to have an advantage (PS..i dont want to start a whole debte on this)

 

[Crow-mosone]

Originally posted by littleduck
would any of you be in favour of expanding the AFL to 20-teams and lowering the salary cap to about 5 million to accomodate the 4 additional teams?

10 vic teams - same as now.
10 nonvic teams - same as now + 4 additions

WA: west coast (subiaco), fremantle (subiaco)
SA: adelaide (aami), port adelaide (aami)
NSW: sydney (scg/telstra), western sydney (scg/telstra)
QLD: brisbane (gabba), south east queensland (gabba)
ACT: canberra (manuka)
NZ: new zealand (auckland/wellington)

Considering most AFL administrators beleive 12 is the optimum, this is never going to even be thought about.

 

[Sera]

We want to decrease the number of teams, not increase them...

 

[littleduck]

Originally posted by Chris_Judd
Never EVER happen.... means you would only have 19 rounds a year... not a bad thing.... but... it means you only play each team once.... Could you imagine the draw Collingwood would get. We'd never see them in Perth.

why would it mean a 19-round season?
current the AFL is 22 rounds with 16-teams - its hardly a true hom n away comp as it stands.

 

[littleduck]

Originally posted by Sera
We want to decrease the number of teams, not increase them...

yeah, i think its inevitable that AFL will be forced to deal with many of the issues which caused Super League in Rugby League, the most important being too many teams in melbourne.

 

[jc67]

it would only work if it was split in 2 groups with the top 5 in july say to play the other top 5 in a second tier. then final 5 in sept.
It wont happen. but if it did i would like a system modeled on pommy soccer (minor and major league with yearly qualifiying for the major leauge).

 

[gocats]

Originally posted by littleduck
yeah, i think its inevitable that AFL will be forced to deal with many of the issues which caused Super League in Rugby League, the most important being too many teams in melbourne.

We dont have to reduce teams, we need the smaller teams to play in Tassie, Canberra, Darwin etc.... to build up the game.

 

[littleduck]

Originally posted by gocats
We dont have to reduce teams, we need the smaller teams to play in Tassie, Canberra, Darwin etc.... to build up the game.

yeah, it make sense for the smaller melbourne-based AFL teams to take home games to the smaller regional areas and tasmania, but only for 1-off games.. these areas arent capable of having a team in their own right.
in the end they are still melbourne teams.

 

[littleduck]

if the AFL keep (i would argue arrogantly) making noises about aussie rules taking over from league and union NSW and QLD - then its inevitable the issue of too many melbourne teams will need to be addressed, with the solution being to reduce the number somehow.

on the other hand, if the AFL make the conscious decision to remain a victorian-centric game rather than becoming a national competition - then i see no reason to change the current structure of the competition - unless a melbourne team collapses, in which case you would admit another team from outside victoria.

it really depends on what vision for the game the AFL adopt:
- glorified victorian comp
- true national comp

 

[gocats]

Originally posted by littleduck
yeah, it make sense for the smaller melbourne-based AFL teams to take home games to the smaller regional areas and tasmania, but only for 1-off games.. these areas arent capable of having a team in their own right.
in the end they are still melbourne teams.

They cant have second homes?

 

[gocats]

Originally posted by littleduck
if the AFL keep (i would argue arrogantly) making noises about aussie rules taking over from league and union NSW and QLD - then its inevitable the issue of too many melbourne teams will need to be addressed, with the solution being to reduce the number somehow.

on the other hand, if the AFL make the conscious decision to remain a victorian-centric game rather than becoming a national competition - then i see no reason to change the current structure of the competition - unless a melbourne team collapses, in which case you would admit another team from outside victoria.

it really depends on what vision for the game the AFL adopt:
- glorified victorian comp
- true national comp

True national comp is what we want.

 

[gocats]

Originally posted by littleduck
south east queensland (gabba)

will not work at gabba, will probably have to play out of redeveloped carrara or something, remember how the bears went playing out of the gold coast.

 

[littleduck]

Originally posted by gocats
They cant have second homes?

of course they can, but lets be realistic - their motive for transferring home games is financial - its pie in the sky to expect the regional centre to adopt that team as their own.

 

[Sera]

Originally posted by gocats
True national comp is what we want.

A truly national comp would only have 5-6 Melbourne teams. The AFL will never kick anyone out so its up to Melbourne clubs to fold.

 

[RW]

A 20-team league is probably unworkable but an alternative would be to have a 12-team Premier League with an 8-team "First Division" League made up of the 4 remaining AFL teams as of today, plus 4 "experimental" teams

eg. 1 in Canberra
1 in West Sydney
1 in Tasmania?
1 in SE Queensland or maybe in NZ??

More experimental teams could be added to first division as there are only 8, also could have an English Premier League-style promotion and relegation system where the bottom 2 premier league teams are relegated to allow the other AFL teams a chance to compete in the big league. This is just an idea, it would at least allow the weaker Melbourne clubs to keep an identity and survive.

 

[Scottroo]

$5 bucks on new zealand coming bottom!

 

[sbagman]

Surely the coup de grace for the AFL in NSW and QLD would have to be second teams there. As a Melbournian living in Brisbane, I found it a bit odd that you would have a game, and then a couple of weeks (or even more) would pass before the next one. I think to really turn the screws on the rugby code, a second team in those places would do wonders. Footy every week, two local derbys a year, and none of these gaps... 11 games a year isn't much when the closest away game is 1000km away. It would take alot of balls, and alot of nursing in the first 10 years, but I think the rewards would be enormous.

 

[Kapow!!!]

Re: Re: AFL 20-team competition

Originally posted by gocats
will not work at gabba, will probably have to play out of redeveloped carrara or something, remember how the bears went playing out of the gold coast.

No. If Southport get an AFL licence, they HAVE to play at the Gabba, even if they are based down the coast.

 

[Duffman95]

Re: Re: Re: AFL 20-team competition

Originally posted by Kapow!!!
No. If Southport get an AFL licence, they HAVE to play at the Gabba, even if they are based down the coast.

I've often heard this, but never understood why... Is it another bull**** AFL-Ground Contract?

 

[billy big ears]

Too many teams in Melbourne already let some die or relocate! 14 teams the max.

 

[Kapow!!!]

Re: Re: Re: Re: AFL 20-team competition

Originally posted by Duffman95
I've often heard this, but never understood why... Is it another bull**** AFL-Ground Contract?

Possibly but from what I've heard it's to Southports choosing until a big ground is built on the coast. Because let's face it, Carrara bearly holds anything.

 

[Fire Storm]

I heard Carrara is being redevoloped into a Rugby League stadium for a Gold Coast team in 2006.



Actually read that in the Herald Sun. So it HAS to be right!