An alternative to the 'National' competition

[Carringbush2010]

Highest quality my arse, country sides could challenge WAFL league sides and A grade Ammos and certain PSA teams could challenge a WAFL colts (internal WA problems for another time).

Oh and I did, I said things like soft cap changes and NGA concessions, hell things like COLA existed once, commerical agreements in certain states to be outside cap etc. There's a few things, so that an already Vic comp doesn't have built in features to accommodate all players flocking there. It's a Vic comp absolutely. Folding clubs is not the only option, and if that's not on the cards everyone should just deal?

You don't have ideas, I did and you jumped right over them - your idea is one you float, say it doesn't work and then say that's that. How's that being honest and being blunt? Tbh, it's facetious snarky and slippery from here.

I admit the comp is skewed that way, but there's always room for improvement from both sides mind you.

How about this, can you genuinely come up with something small that doesn't involve folding clubs? Do you have that lense for critical thinking that can suit all parties (or try to) rather than just one?

All those things you suggest aren't going to even up the competition to the way that most non vic fans want. You carry on like it will and the wafl is crap, but you're not the only non vic fan, it's not just about you.

There are other non vic fans that will not be satisfied with your ideas, they ain't enough!

So my ideas in the op may satisfy non vic fans, not that they're gonna happen anytime soon but surely they're better for non vic fans than what we have now.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I made the suggestion once that WA teams travel every 3rd week instead of every second and got howled down by Vic's.
It would actually be a very easy change to achieve and fairer.

And is that gonna satisfy every WA fan? Will that stop the whinging? No it won't, there'll be fans that will still carry on about travel, well yeah that's a geography problem.

Then there's still the GF is at a home ground of 5 tenant clubs, are WA fans gonna be satisfied if their teams travel every 3rd week? Not going by the comments from them on these boards they're not.

Then there's the biased vic media, travel every 3rd week, yeah that'll fix it.

And as AstonSouffle said, about COLA and NGA and all that, yeah ok do all that and we'll still have whinging non vic fans about VICBias.

One way to do away with all that is to return to the state leagues, as suggested in the op, takes away all those inequities. Or cull certain vic clubs (obviously that's not gonna happen). Better than what we have now.

Then again, we'd have that and then the non vic fans would whinge because the whatever it is vfl would garner the most public interest and not their own league, coz y'know the vic footy market is the biggest market.

The whinging will probably never stop.

 

[Coolangatta]

I don't see why we can't have at least 24 teams in the future. More than that and you'd need a conference system or promotion/relegation but if you wanted to avoid that, you could cap it at 24.

In no particular order of teams, added every 15-20 years:

Option A: Tasmania, Canberra, 3rd Perth, 3rd Adelaide, Northern Territory, North Queensland
Option B: Tasmania, Canberra, 3rd Perth, 3rd Adelaide, combined NT-NQ, 2nd Brisbane
Option C: Tasmania, Canberra, 3rd Perth, 2nd Brisbane, Northern Territory, North Queensland

I would choose option B or C, as I think Brisbane, like Sydney, is eventually going to be too big for just one team; I read once that they're expected to reach 4 million people by 2050. I think the major cities (Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane, Sydney) should have a minimum of two teams each.

Sunshine Coast, Newcastle, etc, should be secondary markets only.

In any case, the main point here is that the best course of action in the future is to add more teams because it doesn't kill off any Vic clubs but it doesn't kill off expansion either which capping it at 20 would.

Edit:
Option D: Tasmania, Canberra, 2nd Brisbane, South West WA, Northern Territory, North Queensland

Two teams each in Perth, Adelaide, Sydney, and Brisbane, which will eventually have the population and market growth, is a nice balance.

 

[terrybull]

Is there the same problem in he NRL which is a continuation of the NSWRL.

Syd bias?

 

[terrybull]

A but off topic… or not

But we still haven’t had a AFL Grand Final between two pure non-Victorian sides. If we consider Sydney has the South Melbourne connection and Brisbane has the Fitzroy connection.

Unfortunately doesn’t like this year either unless Adelaide do a WB and meet PA in the GF.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Plus it's the suggestion that the AFL would be what it is today without the interstate clubs? The money swirling around the game is because it's national.

Kinda. Depends what you mean by “interstate”. The money in the game is predominantly broadcasting and the important factor there is the eastern states. They’re the big TV markets.

Sydney and Brisbane expansion was hugely important.

The NRL’s TV money is about 2/3rds of the AFL and they have 16/17 clubs in two eastern states, and none in SA or WA.

WA and SA clubs can largely support themselves but they don’t deliver a lot to the game nationally.

An AFL without them would certainly be smaller $ wise, but not drastically unrecognisable to what it is now. Vic, NSW and Qld are the big tickets.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Just to prove that vic is the biggest footy market, and it explains why the landscape is what it is.



The vic population outnumbers all other footy states and territories combined by a staggering 1Million 200 and 23 thousand people.

That is why the vic market is the biggest market and is why the landscape is skewed this way.

So IF we were to actually go to a truly national comp, the only way to do this would be to have start up franchise vic clubs in a new comp, and obviously the current vic clubs would be in their own vfl competition.

Note:

• It's highly unlikely these new teams would garner any public interest.
• That would then mean the whatever it is vfl would be a higher profile than the whatever it is afl, and would be where the money goes and by extension the best players, coaches, staff media attention etc.

OR

• We cull a certain number of vic teams from the current afl.

Obviously, the latter, would of course need consultation from club members, and would likely decline. Even if they did accept, then it would have to go to an all club vote on the proposal, only a 3/4 majority vote would get up, it's in the charter. Again unlikely, even IF that would get up then we're likely to lose paying fans numbering over half a million.

So for non vic fans who have such disdain for the inequities of the league, you have a choice, vote with your feet and remotes or accept what is.

Up to you.

 

[Coolangatta]

Just to prove that vic is the biggest footy market, and it explains why the landscape is what it is.

View attachment 1732711

The vic population outnumbers all other footy states and territories combined by a staggering 1Million 200 and 23 thousand people.

That is why the vic market is the biggest market and is why the landscape is skewed this way.

So IF we were to actually go to a truly national comp, the only way to do this would be to have start up franchise vic clubs in a new comp, and obviously the current vic clubs would be in their own vfl competition.

Note:

• It's highly unlikely these new teams would garner any public interest.
• That would then mean the whatever it is vfl would be a higher profile than the whatever it is afl, and would be where the money goes and by extension the best players, coaches, staff media attention etc.

OR

• We cull a certain number of vic teams from the current afl.

Obviously, the latter, would of course need consultation from club members, and would likely decline. Even if they did accept, then it would have to go to an all club vote on the proposal, only a 3/4 majority vote would get up, it's in the charter. Again unlikely, even IF that would get up then we're likely to lose paying fans numbering over half a million.

So for non vic fans who have such disdain for the inequities of the league, you have a choice, vote with your feet and remotes or accept what is.

Up to you.

Or… the AFL doesn’t stop expanding at 20 teams. All the Vic clubs stay but new clubs are added every 15-20 years, if there’s a good financial case for them, or to “complete” the competition i.e. Tasmania, ACT, NT.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Or… the AFL doesn’t stop expanding at 20 teams. All the Vic clubs stay but new clubs are added every 15-20 years, if there’s a good financial case for them, or to “complete” the competition i.e. Tasmania, ACT, NT.

That's all good and well but there has to market for them, I for one can't see any market for a new vic team, nor can I see one for a 3rd WA, SA, NSW, ACT or QLd team for that matter.

Even if there were market, then there's the obvious it'd have to be a conference model, in which case you'd pretty much have to return to state leagues.

By extension that'd once again equate to the vic one being the highest profile, with the most participants and attracts the biggest market. Back at square one.

 

[Coolangatta]

That's all good and well but there has to market for them, I for one can't see any market for a new vic team, nor can I see one for a 3rd WA, SA, NSW, ACT or QLd team for that matter.

Even if there were market, then there's the obvious it'd have to be a conference model, in which case you'd pretty much have to return to state leagues.

By extension that'd once again equate to the vic one being the highest profile, with the most participants and attracts the biggest market. Back at square one.

I can, and a conference model doesn’t have to revert to state leagues.

For example:

Victoria East
Victoria West
Western: West Coast, Fremantle, 3rd WA, NT
Eastern: Sydney, GWS, Canberra, 3rd NSW or New Zealand
Southern: Crows, Power, 3rd Adelaide, Tasmania
Northern: Lions, Suns, North Queensland, 2nd Brisbane

You play the teams in your conference twice and some of the other conference teams once. 23 games a year like we have now, whoever you don’t play one season you play the next.

Exception is Victoria, all Victorian team’s play each other at least once per year. King’s Birthday, Easter Monday, ANZAC game etc thus maintained forever.

So nothing would change, VIC sides don’t all play each other twice each year as it is, but they do at least all play each other once a year and that should stay since the comp did grow out of the VFL. VIC clubs get 13 games a year against other Vic clubs plus 5 home 5 away against interstate sides. You lose nothing.

In this proposed system, top 6 are the conference winners. The 6 best of the rest according to W-L make up 7th-12th.

Week One: 1 v 12, 2 v 11, 3 v 10, 4 v 9, 5 v 8, 6 v 7.

Four lowest ranked losers are eliminated, which means top 2 are safe even if they both lose.

Week Two: 8 teams left, reorganised ranking based on outcome of week one, with lower ranked teams moving above eliminated teams.

Rest of finals same system as we have now, with the top four getting a double chance, but some of the poorer performing conference winners have to earn it by winning in week one.

Beating a conference champion at their home ground could earn you a double chance if your W-L record was good enough to finish just outside the top six.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I can, and a conference model doesn’t have to revert to state leagues.

For example:

Victoria East
Victoria West
Western: West Coast, Fremantle, 3rd WA, NT
Eastern: Sydney, GWS, Canberra, 3rd NSW or New Zealand
Southern: Crows, Power, 3rd Adelaide, Tasmania
Northern: Lions, Suns, North Queensland, 2nd Brisbane

You play the teams in your conference twice and some of the other conference teams once. 23 games a year like we have now, whoever you don’t play one season you play the next.

Exception is Victoria, all Victorian team’s play each other at least once per year. King’s Birthday, Easter Monday, ANZAC game etc thus maintained forever.

So nothing would change, VIC sides don’t all play each other twice each year as it is, but they do at least all play each other once a year and that should stay since the comp did grow out of the VFL. VIC clubs get 13 games a year against other Vic clubs plus 5 home 5 away against interstate sides. You lose nothing.

In this proposed system, top 6 are the conference winners. The 6 best of the rest according to W-L make up 7th-12th.

Week One: 1 v 12, 2 v 11, 3 v 10, 4 v 9, 5 v 8, 6 v 7.

Four lowest ranked losers are eliminated, which means top 2 are safe even if they both lose.

Week Two: 8 teams left, reorganised ranking based on outcome of week one, with lower ranked teams moving above eliminated teams.

Rest of finals same system as we have now, with the top four getting a double chance, but some of the poorer performing conference winners have to earn it by winning in week one.

Beating a conference champion at their home ground could earn you a double chance if your W-L record was good enough to finish just outside the top six.

I admire your optimism, I really do.

However, you've got to have a public interest in those expansion clubs post Tassie.

Tassie has an automatic at least 200k paying fan base, that's not up for debate.

Past that, where I live in Perth I don't see a market past Freo or WC, I can't speak for SA but I don't see past Ade and Port either, and as far as nsw, qld, nt and the act, well you're pushing into wishful thinking. Even in 15 or 20 years.

The expansion clubs we have now rose with immediate public interest because it was a chance to have representation in the highest profile league, never had it beforehand, and that is I suspect why non vic fans hold true regardless of the inequities that is so vehemently detested.

That is reason I posted this thread, to either go to a conference (state) model or just accept what is, there really is no other possible reality - even if my proposal is even possible at all.

 

[Coolangatta]

I admire your optimism, I really do.

However, you've got to have a public interest in those expansion clubs post Tassie.

Tassie has an automatic at least 200k paying fan base, that's not up for debate.

Past that, where I live in Perth I don't see a market past Freo or WC, I can't speak for SA but I don't see past Ade and Port either, and as far as nsw, qld, nt and the act, well you're pushing into wishful thinking. Even in 15 or 20 years.

The expansion clubs we have now rose with immediate public interest because it was a chance to have representation in the highest profile league, never had it beforehand, and that is I suspect why non vic fans hold true regardless of the inequities that is so vehemently detested.

That is reason I posted this thread, to either go to a conference (state) model or just accept what is, there really is no other possible reality - even if my proposal is even possible at all.

Yeah you could 100% be right about it being fanciful beyond 20 teams. If Tassie gets in I think there’ll be a 20th team for sure.

One reason Perth gets talked about is because of our stadium, the huge waiting list at West Coast, appetite for more footy here, and the broadcaster option of a Friday night double header with one at Optus and one wherever else. Time zone checks out for that.

The other is Canberra cause they get good turnouts at Giants games, good history, some great players, Riverina link, growing population, a lot more money and better infrastructure than Darwin etc.

Anywhere else for 20 is fanciful but they’re talking about maybe NT or joint NT-NQ which seems crazy to me but not that crazy 30 odd years from now imo.

But it could very well be not feasible after 20. I’m sure the AFL will be smart about expansion. I think second teams in QLD and NSW was the right move.

 

[VicBased]

And is that gonna satisfy every WA fan? Will that stop the whinging? No it won't, there'll be fans that will still carry on about travel, well yeah that's a geography problem.

Then there's still the GF is at a home ground of 5 tenant clubs, are WA fans gonna be satisfied if their teams travel every 3rd week? Not going by the comments from them on these boards they're not.

Then there's the biased vic media, travel every 3rd week, yeah that'll fix it.

And as AstonSouffle said, about COLA and NGA and all that, yeah ok do all that and we'll still have whinging non vic fans about VICBias.

One way to do away with all that is to return to the state leagues, as suggested in the op, takes away all those inequities. Or cull certain vic clubs (obviously that's not gonna happen). Better than what we have now.

Then again, we'd have that and then the non vic fans would whinge because the whatever it is vfl would garner the most public interest and not their own league, coz y'know the vic footy market is the biggest market.

The whinging will probably never stop.

WoW, saying WA people are whingers via a post which is probably the biggest whinge on this site is some irony right there.

 

[Grin]

Whilst I agree that rotating the grand final would be a good thing in therms of supporter involvement and festival atmosphere etc (imagine the grand final coming to your capital city every 8 years), it wouldn't improve the chances of premiership success for non Melbourne based clubs.

You can divide the footy season into 3 parts: H&A, Finals and the Grand Final.

In the H&A season, Non Melbourne based clubs have such a massive advantage they are over 250% more likely to make the top 2.

Whilst the non-Melbourne based clubs carry the same advantage into the finals, they often struggle, even on their home grounds, because they're up against Melbourne based teams who've faced a much tougher task to make it to the finals, so need to be better than non Melbourne based clubs to be there. Even so, non Melbourne based clubs still have big advantages, resulting in significant over representation in grand finals.

Therefore any grand final between a Melbourne based club and a non Melbourne based club is likely to be very lopsided, wherever it is played, because the Melbourne based club has had to be so much better than the non Melbourne based club to make the grand final in the first place.

Whilst again, I agree that rotating the grand final would likely be a good thing for many reasons, it's not going to change the regularity of non Melbourne based clubs getting smashed by Melbourne based clubs in grand finals.

This means constant demands from supporters of non Melbourne based clubs that they be even more outrageously advantaged than they already are, will not lead to any increase in Grand Final success, unless you make the playing field so uneven that it is impossible for Melbourne based clubs to make the grand final in the first place. I believe this is where the solution lies.

My solution is that, come finals:
1/ Non Melbourne based clubs are automatic finalists and that finals places are expanded to 10 to allow for this to happen.
2/ A maximums of 1 non Melbourne based club can make the finals.
3/ Any Non Melbourne based team that faces a Melbourne based club in finals gets a 120 point head start
4/ That 9 premierships are awarded each year, one for each non Melbourne based club. Thereby gifting them all the success they feel entitled to without having to do the hard work to achieve it.

Whilst this wouldn't stop the incessant whinging from supporters of non Melbourne based clubs (they probably wouldn't even stop to draw breath). It may go some way to addressing the unbearable injustice they feel by only having huge advantages over Melbourne based clubs, but not currently massive enough to prevent any chance of any Melbourne based club from ever being able to make a grand final ever again.

Is this idea something we can all get around? Or does it not go far enough?

 

[Grin]

I've come up with a great plan for the H&A season too.

Given the injustice of travel for non Melbourne based clubs, but that it is simply uneconomic to relocate Melbourne to, say, WA every other week. When Melbourne based clubs play home games against interstate teams, they play at their virtual home ground for that state. Eg. when playing a home game against the Eagles, Docklands becomes the Melbourne based home ground. When playing Port, Adelaide Oval becomes the Melbourne based club's virtual home ground. So on and so forth.

However this doesn't address the issue of travel when 2 non Melbourne based clubs face each other. The solution is simple: They don't. The home and away season consists of 18 games, a home and away game between each Melbourne based club and each non Melbourne based club. Eg. the eagles play 9 home games against Melbourne based clubs and 9 virtual away games.

To compensate for the injustice of having to play virtual away games, non Melbourne based clubs get a 120 point head start for these games and only a 60 point head start in their home games.

Whilst this obviously wouldn't stop the whinge fest, it would make it extremely unlikely that any Melbourne based club can ever make the finals. Given that each non Melbourne based club is guaranteed premiership victory each year, it would eliminate the need for finals too.

Furthermore, if the 18 week elite AFL season was played between October and February, this would allow state based leagues much more public focus better media access in winter = >popularity. So in Melbourne for example, there could be a state based league of, say, 12 teams, 22 rounds and a finals series, to be played from March to the last Saturday in September.

 

[Papa G]

The Vic population thing is a massive misnomer. Look who migrates to Melbourne in massive numbers and tell me how many of them watch or participate in Australian Rules Football?

The other misnomer is Eastern States television audience. Look at the numbers. Brisbane/Sydney TV audiences are still pitiful. It's still largely a southern state game. It is only a niche sport in NSW and QLD. It will not takeover in those states as much as the AFL want to believe it will. Gold Coast and GWS are a waste of time.

Just get rid of North and Melbourne. Nobody would even notice. 15 team comp. 8,2,2,1,1,1. Home teams play at their home ground only. AFL govern fair and evenly for all clubs. Tear up corrupt MCG Contract, "Blockbuster" bullshit mandates and tell the Victorian Government they can't buy favours.

Simple.

 

[LoungeLizard]

The Vic population thing is a massive misnomer. Look who migrates to Melbourne in massive numbers and tell me how many of them watch or participate in Australian Rules Football?

The other misnomer is Eastern States television audience. Look at the numbers. Brisbane/Sydney TV audiences are still pitiful. It's still largely a southern state game. It is only a niche sport in NSW and QLD. It will not takeover in those states as much as the AFL want to believe it will. Gold Coast and GWS are a waste of time.

Just get rid of North and Melbourne. Nobody would even notice. 15 team comp. 8,2,2,1,1,1. Home teams play at their home ground only. AFL govern fair and evenly for all clubs. Tear up corrupt MCG Contract, "Blockbuster" bullshit mandates and tell the Victorian Government they can't buy favours.

Simple.

"AFL govern fair and evenly for all clubs" you say.

Then Port can piss off also because it's not fair you get more than other clubs in distribution.

Simple.

 

[Grin]

"AFL govern fair and evenly for all clubs" you say.

Then Port can piss off also because it's not fair you get more than other clubs in distribution.

Simple.

I think we've established that no matter how many unsporting advantages his club gets over other clubs eg 13 games on home ground, 11 with a home state advantage, just to name one advantage. Too much can never be enough.

I doubt even my proposals for the H&A season and finals would go anywhere near to satisfying him and some others in these threads. It's got nothing to do with fairness. He's just whinging because his club isn't gifted the premiership every year. My proposal addresses that.

To summarise: We've established non Melbourne based clubs already get very significant and measurable advantages over Melbourne based clubs. It's Melbourne based clubs that are significantly disadvantaged. I think apart from proposals that will make the completion a joke, this thread and other like it are done.

The myth of the disadvantaged non Melbourne clubs is well and truely busted. In fact the opposite is the case.

 

[AstonSouffle]

Kinda. Depends what you mean by “interstate”. The money in the game is predominantly broadcasting and the important factor there is the eastern states. They’re the big TV markets.

Sydney and Brisbane expansion was hugely important.

The NRL’s TV money is about 2/3rds of the AFL and they have 16/17 clubs in two eastern states, and none in SA or WA.

WA and SA clubs can largely support themselves but they don’t deliver a lot to the game nationally.

An AFL without them would certainly be smaller $ wise, but not drastically unrecognisable to what it is now. Vic, NSW and Qld are the big tickets.

Every WA player in the last 30 years is directly from the money the WA clubs produce (quite literally they have to pay royalties each year). For which the entire competition benefits, I see that as tremendously important to the game no?

 

[LoungeLizard]

I think we've established that no matter how many unsporting advantages his club gets over other clubs eg 13 games on home ground, 11 with a home state advantage, just to name one advantage. Too much can never be enough.

I doubt even my proposals for the H&A season and finals would go anywhere near to satisfying him and some others in these threads. It's got nothing to do with fairness. He's just whinging because his club isn't gifted the premiership every year. My proposal addresses that.

To summarise: We've established non Melbourne based clubs already get very significant and measurable advantages over Melbourne based clubs. It's Melbourne based clubs that are significantly disadvantaged. I think apart from proposals that will make the completion a joke, this thread and other like it are done.

The myth of the disadvantaged non Melbourne clubs is well and truely busted. In fact the opposite is the case.

It's like the Aussies playing the Poms in cricket every year,the whinging never stops.

 

[AstonSouffle]

I've come up with a great plan for the H&A season too.

Given the injustice of travel for non Melbourne based clubs, but that it is simply uneconomic to relocate Melbourne to, say, WA every other week. When Melbourne based clubs play home games against interstate teams, they play at their virtual home ground for that state. Eg. when playing a home game against the Eagles, Docklands becomes the Melbourne based home ground. When playing Port, Adelaide Oval becomes the Melbourne based club's virtual home ground. So on and so forth.

However this doesn't address the issue of travel when 2 non Melbourne based clubs face each other. The solution is simple: They don't. The home and away season consists of 18 games, a home and away game between each Melbourne based club and each non Melbourne based club. Eg. the eagles play 9 home games against Melbourne based clubs and 9 virtual away games.

To compensate for the injustice of having to play virtual away games, non Melbourne based clubs get a 120 point head start for these games and only a 60 point head start in their home games.

Whilst this obviously wouldn't stop the whinge fest, it would make it extremely unlikely that any Melbourne based club can ever make the finals. Given that each non Melbourne based club is guaranteed premiership victory each year, it would eliminate the need for finals too.

Furthermore, if the 18 week elite AFL season was played between October and February, this would allow state based leagues much more public focus better media access in winter = >popularity. So in Melbourne for example, there could be a state based league of, say, 12 teams, 22 rounds and a finals series, to be played from March to the last Saturday in September.

Lol this is what gets me tbh,

The suggestions are cull Vic clubs (but we can't do that so it's not really a suggestion, so you may as well not have said anything at all).

Or give interstate teams 120 point head starts?

The Vic Bias I talk about is fixture times, commentators forgetting names, not knowing names of grounds outside of Melbourne, not knowing names of players, forgetting the names of interstate coaches, spelling names wrong - all of this is easily solved stuff but you guys just don't why?

Bloke above talked about Cricket, at least that game celebrates the country and is proud of what makes their game great. You lot strongly believe WA, SA, and NT talent exist for the sole purpose of playing for Victorian AFL clubs and making you guys money that's it. You have no respect for the national game and you'd cut us loose at a moments notice (but not the good players that come from outside Victoria).

 

[LoungeLizard]

Lol this is what gets me tbh,

The suggestions are cull Vic clubs (but we can't do that so it's not really a suggestion, so you may as well not have said anything at all).

Or give interstate teams 120 point head starts?

The Vic Bias I talk about is fixture times, commentators forgetting names, not knowing names of grounds outside of Melbourne, not knowing names of players, forgetting the names of interstate coaches, spelling names wrong - all of this is easily solved stuff but you guys just don't why?

Bloke above talked about Cricket, at least that game celebrates the country and is proud of what makes their game great. You lot strongly believe WA, SA, and NT talent exist for the sole purpose of playing for Victorian AFL clubs and making you guys money that's it. You have no respect for the national game and you'd cut us loose at a moments notice (but not the good players that come from outside Victoria).

That's actually funny you bring up cricket celebrates the country.

When I lived in Perth way back in the early 80's a headline in the local paper I will never forget after the Aussies won a test.

Western Australia wins test.

I kid you not.

 

[AstonSouffle]

That's actually funny you bring up cricket celebrates the country.

When I lived in Perth way back in the early 80's a headline in the local paper I will never forget after the Aussies won a test.

Western Australia wins test.

I kid you not.

Well that's s**t and shouldn't have happened. The West Australian paper is pure garbage lol, they hate everything and everyone, and when they are positive it's because apparently their commentary inspired the win.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Yeah you could 100% be right about it being fanciful beyond 20 teams. If Tassie gets in I think there’ll be a 20th team for sure.

One reason Perth gets talked about is because of our stadium, the huge waiting list at West Coast, appetite for more footy here, and the broadcaster option of a Friday night double header with one at Optus and one wherever else. Time zone checks out for that.

The other is Canberra cause they get good turnouts at Giants games, good history, some great players, Riverina link, growing population, a lot more money and better infrastructure than Darwin etc.

Anywhere else for 20 is fanciful but they’re talking about maybe NT or joint NT-NQ which seems crazy to me but not that crazy 30 odd years from now imo.

But it could very well be not feasible after 20. I’m sure the AFL will be smart about expansion. I think second teams in QLD and NSW was the right move.

Maybe a 20th.

Just because there's a waiting list at wc doesn't mean those fans are gonna jump ship just to be able to get games, sure they'll probably memberships of the 20th but will still pledge allegiance to wc.

More broadly though even if you get your expansion teams into the distant future, A/ It's into the distant future so it doesn't address what so many are pissed off about now B/ There's still a very high probability the vic market would still be the bulk of the market.

It's not addressing the problems, it's just adding more clubs.

 

[Carringbush2010]

WoW, saying WA people are whingers via a post which is probably the biggest whinge on this site is some irony right there.

And here you are not even contributing to the thread about a problem that you know exists and have probably whinged about in the past.