AFL 2050 - 24 Teams

[madmug]

I don't have definate sources here (friends and anecdotes), but it's not the climate so much as the lack of anything up there except the mines and the hugely expensive housing (supply/demand).

If they did a massive amount of construction (housing and facilities), there would be a lot more growth there, but for a variety of reasons, that isn't happening and we're left with a situation where it's actually cheaper to fly to/from Perth when you're working than to stay in town.

Actually I though Darwin was a great place to visit. Quite a lot to see & do, with its multicultural history, pearl industry stuff, museums, lots of clubs & pubs, great sporting city (local footy was great), fishing, the Mindil beach market, casino ( not for me though!)trips to the inland, alligator river, litchfield park etc.. I couldnt stand the weather for too long but I thought it a great town to visit & enjoy.
Footy their in July would be bloody hard. 32c would kill most players.
I recon the future for Darwin is bright. Footy would need an indoor venue though. The humidity & heat is just not for me.
I get sunburned on a full moon.

 

[telsor]

Actually I though Darwin was a great place to visit. Quite a lot to see & do, with its multicultural history, pearl industry stuff, museums, lots of clubs & pubs, great sporting city (local footy was great), fishing, the Mindil beach market, casino ( not for me though!)trips to the inland, alligator river, litchfield park etc.. I couldnt stand the weather for too long but I thought it a great town to visit & enjoy.
Footy their in July would be bloody hard. 32c would kill most players.
I recon the future for Darwin is bright. Footy would need an indoor venue though. The humidity & heat is just not for me.
I get sunburned on a full moon.

I'm with you on the sunburn side of things

Yeah, football there would be tough, but who knows, in 30+ years maybe they'll have worked out better techniques for handling it.

 

[madmug]

I'm with you on the sunburn side of things

Yeah, football there would be tough, but who knows, in 30+ years maybe they'll have worked out better techniques for handling it.

Its either an indoor stadium or individual umbrellas!! No doubt Darwin is a long term AFL target.

 

[telsor]

Its either an indoor stadium or individual umbrellas!! No doubt Darwin is a long term AFL target.

Indoor is easy enough, air conditioning for an volume that large would probably be a bit trickier....The cost of both would be substantial, especially as it's mostly done for the benefit of the visiting team.

 

[McCrann]

24 teams is saying AFL has 'Won the War' against the NRL.


it's the only way there will be enough talent and money to go around.

Agree with this. The NFL is the biggest sport in America at the moment - it wasn't in the 90s.

 

[McCrann]

Conferences are a far better scenario than promotion and relegation, which is the best way to completely f### a sport. The Yanks totally got this one right - the biggest matches for every team before actual championships are those in their division, because rivalry is the cornerstone of crowd interest in sport. The plus of a conference is that it ensures the teams within it have exactly the same path to get to finals, the negative being that there is less correlation between the standards of each conference (e.g. imagine Sydney in a NSW/QLD conference only needing 7 wins to grap top spot, while a WA/SA division has four teams all currently with the ability to make the top eight). But this is far superior to teams automatically being given a gap year when they have a single bad season, forced to fight over sponsorship, media coverage, and attendance, with the very real possibility that top line players will ditch them for a team guaranteed of flag contention (try arguing against a restraint of trade lawsuit on that one if you're Melbourne)...

Exactly right. People arguing for promotion/ relegation in an Australian context are in effect arguing for the 'killing off' of a number of teams. Why would anyone wish teams to be destroyed?

Australia (23 million) - size of a continent is not England (55 million) - size of Victoria.

Some people don't seem to understand the inherent transport costs involved in getting around this country! Where do they think the money comes from? Trees?

 

[McCrann]

This thread must go into the 'dumbest thread' basket. 25 teams??????????????

72 fully professional Soccer teams in England. Presumably you think that should be cut back to maybe 50? Or 48? How many should they have - clearly they are spreading talent far too thinly around England!

Please advise.

 

[McCrann]

Dont forget that a lot of people who work in mining towns actually fly out & go back interstate to their families whenever they can. They dont actually live in the nearest capital city. Sure the NT may get a gas & mining boom, the size depends on the world economy & whether China can get through its growing debt problem & housing bubble.

The world economy is volatile so dont hang your hat on Darwin growing at 5% year on year for 30 years.

I think the AFL will look a little closer to the next few years to make changes, rather than the year 2050. Thats about 10 media contract agreements away.

I agree with that point - as it should - the AFL isn't going to be adding any teams anytime soon (not before 2025 I wouldn't have thought). It should be trying to maximise TV income for the deal beginning in 2017 (for however long that deal is). This post is more like a thought bubble about how the AFL could look in 2050.

The location of the teams is less important than whether the AFL when it turns to long-term planning could envisage supporting a competition of 24 or 25 teams. Can they see that as a possible future? They should be aiming high and making sure current plans and implementation build on each other and can be built upon easily in the future.

 

[scotty13]

By 2050 I dont expect too much change in the number of teams in the comp. maybe 20 clubs.

I would expect at least 3 new sides to be entered into the AFL though.

By 2050 WA will have a 3rd team, Tassy will have a team and NT will have a team. Nth Qld will possibly also have a team.
The WA team will of course be Perth based, the Tassy team splitting games between Hobart/Launceston (Primarily Hobart based), the NT team splitting games between Darwin/Alice (Primarily Darwin based) and a Nth Qld team based in Cairnes.
The amount of Vic teams will diminish. Geelong, Collingwood, Carlton, Richmond and Melbourne will be the only safe clubs. With the Tassy team meaning Hawks/Nth loose the millions of dollars they get from the tasty government not coming in anymore the financial pressure will be on. St Kilda, Bulldogs will still be crippled financially and Essendon, well no one knows where the club will be in 2 yrs let alone 36yrs. I would be surprised if more than one club folds by 2050 with the AFL stopping the propping up of clubs that are financially draining them.

I dont mind a conference type system with 20 teams could work out something like this.

Group A:
WCE
Freo
new Perth Team
St Kil
Nth

Group B:
Adel
Port
Syd
GWS
Melb

Group C:
GC
Bris
Cairnes
NT
Hawks

Group D:
Coll
Carl
Rich
Geelong
Tas

Could be played 2 ways:
Option 1: You play everyone in your conference twice, and everyone in the other conferences once = 23 game season
Option 2: You play teams in your conference and one other conference (rotates each year) twice, and other teams once = 27 game season.

Finals remains a final 8 the same as now. No conference winner + random other team from a conference or two. Just best 8 performing teams all play finals, so all 4 teams from one conference could play finals.

Maybe also throw up a conference prize as well. Best performing conference (w/l against teams from other conferences) gets a bonus $2m to spread over the teams or something like that.

Rolling byes across the season starting round 8 finishing round 24 resulting in two byes for each club.

Lists are extended to 50 players + rookies.

Games are continued to be sold to NZ with added games being played in Asia (Hong Kong maybe), USA, England and South Africa. This international exposure of the game ensures that over 5 international players are drafted to clubs each season (through the draft not rookie).

TV rights are selling for $10b/5yr.

Or something like that. I dunno, but would love an NT side in at least.

 

[Gibbke]

Why would they be your conferences? You've got Victorian teams spread to all corners of the globe, and every other state intact - you then tip half of the Vics to fold! And the one team you haven't included above is Essendon...?

 

[scotty13]

Its a bit hard with conferences of 5 teams, to keep all vic sides in the one conference.
Didn't include Essendon for the same reasons I didn't include Bulldogs, who knows if they will be around then. Chances are even less Vic teams will be around in 2050.
The reason why 'all the other states' are together is two ensure the dbl game of the showdown/derby/q-clash/battle of bridge ect.
St Kilda, Nth and Melb dont really have big rivalries with any clubs that draw massive crowds so they can be split. Hawks dont really either (except recently against Geelong, but when both teams are bottom of the ladder - it will happen one day - who knows if the rivalry will continue).

But hey, chances are the AFL will expand to 50 teams by then stretching the talent pool too far.

 

[Gibbke]

All Victorian teams benefit from home state rivalry. The only match of all Vic home state games to consistently draw low attendances is Melbourne v North. Every other match up (and be fair, it's dependent on ladder position and no different to the interstaters) draws over 30k consistently as a conservative minimum. And Victorians are far worse when it comes to choosing the "foreign" games to ditch when they can't be bothered attending every game on their membership or deciding spur of the moment to go to the footy - it will always be this way because Victorian teams will always outnumber the other states...it's a bit self-defeating to have this attitude if you barrack for an interstater with only one home state rival...

If you're going to divide the teams into 4 conferences, it has to be WA/SA, NSW/Qld, Vic1 and Vic2 (both of which can change from year to year). Teams 19-20 can join the interstaters. You can't use Victorian teams as filler for intact interstate groups. You must exploit rivalry, which is the cornerstone of spectator sport, otherwise there's no point creating conferences, especially if your finals qualification has nothing riding on it as you've suggested above...

 

[scotty13]

I think you're getting worked up over clearly a hypothetical situation. You have your views, I have mine.

 

[Gibbke]

Dude...it's an internet forum on footy and you put it out there...! Don't grizzle if someone takes you to task on your logic - back it up.

 

[scotty13]

I gave my thoughts, sorry if I offended cause I didn't put ur hawks in a group with other vic teams but lets be honest, teams that sell their home games (hawks, nth, melb, st kil) hardly deserve the honour of playing against only other vic sides, cause they would sell the games against non vic teams anyway, and all non vic teams have a right to play on the MCG (since the afl will only play the GF there) so by spreading those whores who sell their homes games across the conferences, helps to ensure all non-vic teams get to play at least one game at the G against Coll or Rich.

 

[Mr Ripper]

By 2050 it might just be Collingwood v Hawthorn every week played at Skinner Reserve.

 

[sverik25]

I think with 24 teams you should have:
10 Vic
3 WA, QLD
2 SA, NSW
1 Tas, ACT, NT, NZ

I don't think you need conferences. Each club plays each other once, removes draw inconsistencies etc.

 

[madmug]

I think with 24 teams you should have:
10 Vic
3 WA, QLD
2 SA, NSW
1 Tas, ACT, NT, NZ

I don't think you need conferences. Each club plays each other once, removes draw inconsistencies etc.

Some estimates put the 2050 population of Melbourne at 8.5 million & Perth at 5.5million. With them having 10 & 3 teams as above, it is still an unbalanced situation. Mind you with those sorts of populations the quality of life in the bigger cities would be appalling anyway.

 

[sverik25]

Some estimates put the 2050 population of Melbourne at 8.5 million & Perth at 5.5million. With them having 10 & 3 teams as above, it is still an unbalanced situation. Mind you with those sorts of populations the quality of life in the bigger cities would be appalling anyway.

I understand the population per team discrepancy, but I'm loathe to see any of the Victorian clubs relocated, merged or simply forced out. So many South Melbourne and Fitzroy supporters were lost to the game after their teams left.

 

[telsor]

Some estimates put the 2050 population of Melbourne at 8.5 million & Perth at 5.5million. With them having 10 & 3 teams as above, it is still an unbalanced situation. Mind you with those sorts of populations the quality of life in the bigger cities would be appalling anyway.

Absolutely.
and Tas, ACT, NT & NZ will all probably be even more 'over represented' if we're basing it just on the (AFL supporting) population. Possibly QLD as well (depending on how conversion goes over the next 35 years).

 

[telsor]

Just had a look at the ABS population projections for 2061 (using the 'B' series..ie, midrange).

NSW..11,500K
VIC...10,300K
QLD....9,300K
WA.....6,400K
SA......2,300K
ACT.......741K
TAS.......567K
NT.........458K

 

[Kwality]

Exactly right. People arguing for promotion/ relegation in an Australian context are in effect arguing for the 'killing off' of a number of teams. Why would anyone wish teams to be destroyed?

Australia (23 million) - size of a continent is not England (55 million) - size of Victoria.

Some people don't seem to understand the inherent transport costs involved in getting around this country! Where do they think the money comes from? Trees?

Killing off teams is to protect the elite status of the AFL - look at the status quo, too few elite players, lots of players making up the numbers (see the rogering the Cats copped from the Swans with Enright & Lonergan out). Under the current AFL regime, the expansion has not been matched by the playing stock. McCrann you are promoting taking the game backwards IMHO.

Interesting you mention Englands population when the AFL look to the USA (population of 313.9 mil in 2013).

 

[Shoei]

72 fully professional Soccer teams in England. Presumably you think that should be cut back to maybe 50? Or 48? How many should they have - clearly they are spreading talent far too thinly around England!

Please advise.

What a stupid statement.

Population of the UK in 2012 was 63 million, 3 times that of Australia.

Australia's population is spread over 7,686,850 km2 compared to the UK's 244,820 km2.

Professional football teams in the UK have access to a talent pool comprising of millions of players worldwide. Some 60% of the English Premier league player base is foreign.

 

[Kwality]

There is no doubt that the likes of McCrann are heavily influenced by soccer in Europe/the UK, but in Aus the 2nd level do not interest the vast majority of footy followers & they (McCrann & alike) battle to get their heads around it.

 

[madmug]

What a stupid statement.

Population of the UK in 2012 was 63 million, 3 times that of Australia.

Australia's population is spread over 7,686,850 km2 compared to the UK's 244,820 km2.

Professional football teams in the UK have access to a talent pool comprising of millions of players worldwide. Some 60% of the English Premier league player base is foreign.

You dont need to say 'stupid', the comparison is much more complex & harder than just a quick look at the broader variation of population & geographic size would suggest.

The UK has a lot of cities & towns close to each other so even smallish towns can 'support' a 'professional' team. They have no salary cap so the amount paid would vary wildly between the top of the EPL ( MU, MC, Chelsea etc) to the lower divisions, also within each division.

I just picked out Scampaignerhorpe (its just a terrible name) United who were just promoted to league one. They spent over 3million pounds (about A$6mill) on staff, mainly players, & were the 12th highest in that division. They received some 900k($1.6mil) from the FA, get crowds averaging 3500 & clearly survive on selling the odd junior star to higher division clubs. They still lost 1mill (A$1.8) last season, so would hope to do better in League One next season.

The UK's divisional set up allows for the flow of talent up the chain. It clearly allows the many town based teams to survive the ups & downs of performance & finances. So it has a built in safety valve to allow clubs to compete & survive at the level they are suited to at any particular time.

You simply cant compare it to our one tier professional league. The Member teams, the Draft ( which strictly directs players & sidelines the clubs from which they are recruited from gaining much benefit, or even covering costs), the Salary cap, & the 'fixture' are all highly controlled.

As I've said before, Football politics is just, if not more important than finances in our game.