AFL 2050 - 24 Teams

[telsor]

A fourth WA team serves no purpose but to create a weak team that exists just to weaken West Coast.

When we've got plenty of weak teams it makes no sense to create teams that don't do anything but damage another club, will not be profitable and will not grow the game in either support or playing numbers

It's not to damage WCE.

It's so more people actually get to go to the football and see a game.
Crazy idea, but maybe a kid growing up in WA would like to see an AFL game live before he's 30.

 

[The_Reaper]

It's not to damage WCE.

It's so more people actually get to go to the football and see a game.
Crazy idea, but maybe a kid growing up in WA would like to see an AFL game live before he's 30.

Yet you dislike the idea of a Tasmanian team.

Now way WA3 will consistenly lockout the new stadium anyway. I also have my doubts about Fremantle doing it on a consistent basis.

Fourth WA makes about as much sense as Port Melbourne

 

[telsor]

Yet you dislike the idea of a Tasmanian team.

Now way WA3 will consistenly lockout the new stadium anyway. I also have my doubts about Fremantle doing it on a consistent basis.

Fourth WA makes about as much sense as Port Melbourne

Who said I dislike the idea of a Tas team?

I argue with those who say a Vic team must make way for one, because I think a Tas team is about as viable as the poorer Vic clubs, but I'm not against the idea as part of an expanded league.

No way WA 3 would lockout a new stadium...so from 2.5 million, you wont find 90K/week (60K*1.5matches) who actually want to go to games?

Vic gets about 4 times that with 'only' twice the population. Are WA fans that apathetic?

 

[The_Reaper]

Who said I dislike the idea of a Tas team?

I argue with those who say a Vic team must make way for one, because I think a Tas team is about as viable as the poorer Vic clubs, but I'm not against the idea as part of an expanded league.

No way WA 3 would lockout a new stadium...so from 2.5 million, you wont find 90K/week (60K*1.5matches) who actually want to go to games?

Vic gets about 4 times that with 'only' twice the population. Are WA fans that apathetic?

Why would a West Coast supporter rock up to a Joondalup game?

 

[telsor]

Why would a West Coast supporter rock up to a Joondalup game?

Why would someone support a team they can never see live when they have options?

 

[The_Reaper]

Why would someone support a team they can never see live when they have options?

Because they don't identify with Fremantle or Joondalup and all West Coast games are free to air?

And they already support the Eagles?

 

[telsor]

Because they don't identify with Fremantle or Joondalup and all West Coast games are free to air?

So treat WCE like every other club. FTA less than half the time.

 

[The_Reaper]

So treat WCE like every other club. FTA less than half the time.

And lose a * load in the tv rights from the second biggest market for AFL?
For no gain?

 

[telsor]

And lose a **** load in the tv rights from the second biggest market for AFL?
For no gain?

I'm OK with losing some money in order to treat all teams the same.

 

[Crawb]

Merge Essendon & Brisbane, add WA3. Bam, problem solved.

North Essendon Kangaroos has a better ring to it. Or the Tasmanian Kangaroos.

 

[Engimal]

North Essendon Kangaroos has a better ring to it. Or the Tasmanian Kangaroos.

Yeeah, nah.

 

[madmug]

I think the only way we can see more clubs added is to reduce the cost of running the clubs we already have. Football department sp

North Essendon Kangaroos has a better ring to it. Or the Tasmanian Kangaroos.

NO! Sort your own mess out, dont think you can just dump it here.

 

[Crawb]

Yeeah, nah.

Gillon however goes - Yeah ha.

Like it or not, what else do you really think Gil's whole "One Team Solution" for Tasmania really means in the long term buddy...

 

[Engimal]

Gillon however goes - Yeah ha.

Like it or not, what else do you really think Gil's whole "One Team Solution" for Tasmania really means in the long term buddy...

No more Brions, unfortunately.

 

[telsor]

Gillon however goes - Yeah ha.

Like it or not, what else do you really think Gil's whole "One Team Solution" for Tasmania really means in the long term buddy...

If we stick with 18 clubs, they get a transplant ( best case, a club 'closes', and all it's players, staff & equipment move down and create a 'new' club meaning it's not really new at all). Only way they get a genuinely new club is through expansion.

 

[Rob]

I think the only way we can see more clubs added is to reduce the cost of running the clubs we already have.

What's stopping clubs doing that now?

"I know money is tight, but we really need to take the whole list on a 2 week pre-season trip to Bumf*ck, Idaho because that's what Collingwood is doing. Don't worry because the AFL will pay for it"

Seems legit.

 

[telsor]

What's stopping clubs doing that now?

A desire to be competitive on field perhaps?

After all if these things have no benefit, why are rich clubs doing them?

 

[Rob]

A desire to be competitive on field perhaps?

After all if these things have no benefit, why are rich clubs doing them?

Because they have the money, and being not for profit organisations, they either spend it or bank it. You may as well spend it, because you've got nothing to lose on field.

The problem arises when you don't have the money and you still want to spend it.

 

[madmug]

Because they have the money, and being not for profit organisations, they either spend it or bank it. You may as well spend it, because you've got nothing to lose on field.

The problem arises when you don't have the money and you still want to spend it.

Spending is a bit like an arms race. Spending Trillions$ buys lots of bombs but you only need a couple of nuclear weapons to be competitive.

The Draft & salary cap limit the effectiveness of being 'rich'. North Melbourne show how you can be effective on a mediocre income & expenditure.

 

[telsor]

Spending is a bit like an arms race. Spending Trillions$ buys lots of bombs but you only need a couple of nuclear weapons to be competitive.

The Draft & salary cap limit the effectiveness of being 'rich'. North Melbourne show how you can be effective on a mediocre income & expenditure.

If North had Collingwood's budget, would they have kept 'only' being 'competitive' and finishing mid table?

Do you really think a team of coaches paid $1Million is as good as one paid $2Million?

 

[Rob]

If North had Collingwood's budget, would they have kept 'only' being 'competitive' and finishing mid table?

Do you really think a team of coaches paid $1Million is as good as one paid $2Million?

I'm not sure your point. Obviously the more support staff you have the more likely you are to be a better team on field. Personally I think the correlation is overstated - you only have to look at the performance of the Victorian big 4 over the past decade to see that it's not even close to the be all and end all. Even Collingwood - the only one of that lot that's been better than mediocre over that period - has just the 1 flag in the last 20 years. It's hardly domination. The other huge financial power - West Coast - it struggling to be better than crap at the moment, and has won 1 flag and 1 wooden spoon this century.

But it doesn't matter, because that's not the problem.

The problem is clubs that don't have $2 million spending that on coaches, and expecting other clubs to foot the bill. If you want to spend $2 million on coaches, then that's fine. Generate more revenue and do it. Otherwise come up with another solution that doesn't involve spending someone elses money. That's sustainable. Long term handouts aint.

 

[telsor]

I'm not sure your point. Obviously the more support staff you have the more likely you are to be a better team on field. Personally I think the correlation is overstated - you only have to look at the performance of the Victorian big 4 over the past decade to see that it's not even close to the be all and end all. Even Collingwood - the only one of that lot that's been better than mediocre over that period - has just the 1 flag in the last 20 years. It's hardly domination. The other huge financial power - West Coast - it struggling to be better than crap at the moment, and has won 1 flag and 1 wooden spoon this century.

But it doesn't matter, because that's not the problem.

The problem is clubs that don't have $2 million spending that on coaches, and expecting other clubs to foot the bill. If you want to spend $2 million on coaches, then that's fine. Generate more revenue and do it. Otherwise come up with another solution that doesn't involve spending someone elses money. That's sustainable. Long term handouts aint.

My point is that off field spending matters.

Tell me, how much difference does Ross Lyon make to Freo?

Also, If a player is moving clubs to chase success, are they more or less likely to go a club that pays megabucks to buy the better, proven coaches, or a club that gets whoever they can get for cheap and hopes they'll work out?

 

[Rob]

My point is that off field spending matters.

Maybe, but that's no excuse for clubs to have open chequebooks attached to a bank account with nothing in it.

Tell me, how much difference does Ross Lyon make to Freo?

Also, If a player is moving clubs to chase success, are they more or less likely to go a club that pays megabucks to buy the better, proven coaches, or a club that gets whoever they can get for cheap and hopes they'll work out?

Well we've had 3 years of free agency so far. There doesn't seem to be a lot of movement to the rich clubs, which given there's a salary cap it's probably to be expected.

What do you reckon?

 

[madmug]

Maybe, but that's no excuse for clubs to have open chequebooks attached to a bank account with nothing in it.



Well we've had 3 years of free agency so far. There doesn't seem to be a lot of movement to the rich clubs, which given there's a salary cap it's probably to be expected.

What do you reckon?

Thats the roll of the salary cap, isnt it?
Clubs never have enough money because they think the AFL will just stump up the cash if they scream loud enough . This is not a good business model. It puts the AFL itself at risk.

 

[telsor]

Thats the roll of the salary cap, isnt it?
Clubs never have enough money because they think the AFL will just stump up the cash if they scream loud enough . This is not a good business model. It puts the AFL itself at risk.

But if clubs feel they need to spend money off field, they'll as much spend money there as they think they can get away with.

And they have to do this because if they don't, they wont be as competitive on field, so will lose income in the longer term.