Club History Before the Crows, there was the Redlegs

[GremioPower]

I watched Melbourne sing their club song after the semi final win tonight and sarcastically thought, hey they have stolen Norwood's song.

Then for the first time ever, I though if they ever joined the AFL they would have to change song and colours etc like we did. Many moons ago in the 1870's Melbourne's nickname was the Redlegs after an official returned from England with a set of red socks. They changed their nickname to Fuchsias a few years later and remained that way until the 1930's when their coach famously said at half time one game - stop playing like flowers and play like demons. That stuck. So maybe Norwood could stay the Redlegs.

GremioPower if Norwood had of tried to enter the AFL in 1990 either like Port tried to get in, or had the guts to say to Port and the AFL we should go in together, I'd bet just about everything I own that they would have added yellow to their red and blue and adopted the SA state footy/sporting colours.

The last 6 weeks I have been working with a guy who served 2 stints as a director of Norwood in the 1980's, got transferred to Queensland for about 6 years and then again in the 1990's and then was on a couple of committees, is a good mate of KT, lives in the same street, we have been talking footy, so maybe that's why Norwood is in my head.

WAFL and SANFL really missed the signs in the 70's. A joint competition could have lead to an actual Federal competition, instead of the current expanded Victorian league. Moreover, in hindsight, SANFL and WAFL shouldn't have accepted local franchises into VFL - at least, not at the beginning. For instance, Norwood and Port should have gone into the VFL/AFL, with either the Crows (lead by Glenelg and Sturt) following them soon after. WAFL should have done something similar.

Currently, I don't understand why people say there is no space for a third SA club and a third and forth WA clubs. SANFL should insist in the Norwood-Sturt joint bid. It would be a sky-blue/navy/red club (not clashing with West Lakes nor Melbourne). Maybe financially such expansions do not make sense in the short term, but politically it would help de-Melbournize the AFL - which is a necessity.

The game of footy may be alive and well, but the league seems to be in an early stage of a self-inflicted crisis. It is not much different than the Europe-centered corrupt FIFA, or the Rio/SãoPaulo-centered CBF. There is such a thing as "too much corruption." When the line is crossed, the building comes down.

Brazilian soccer has passed through painful processes of decay, crisis, and reorganization - I am only 37 and have lived three of those (a big one in the 80's, and two minor ones in the 2000's and in the 2010's). I believe we are going to be there again soon enough. Those minor reorganizations have concentrated power into the big clubs, and within those, the big-5 clubs of Rio and São Paulo. That's not good.

 

[Papa G]

The WAFL, SANFL and VFL were the biggest impediment to a proper national league. As leagues they have to act in the best interests of all their clubs. In effect they need to treat minnows South Adelaide or Woodville in the same fashion as they treat Port or Norwood. In effect the SANFL could not give their blessing to say Port and Norwood to join a national league whilst consigning the other 8 clubs and the league itself to third rate citizens overnight.
The same goes for the VFL. Their charter was to look after their member clubs and their league. They did and it's why shitbox clubs like North Melbourne are in the AFL.

Whilst it is an awfully structured and lopsided league, I'm not sure it could have evolved any other way. Our only hope was for a few of those mergers and relocation had of happened in the 90s and 2000s but the league was too post weak to see them through.

 

[GremioPower]

The WAFL, SANFL and VFL were the biggest impediment to a proper national league. As leagues they have to act in the best interests of all their clubs. In effect they need to treat minnows South Adelaide or Woodville in the same fashion as they treat Port or Norwood. In effect the SANFL could not give their blessing to say Port and Norwood to join a national league whilst consigning the other 8 clubs and the league itself to third rate citizens overnight.
The same goes for the VFL. Their charter was to look after their member clubs and their league. They did and it's why shitbox clubs like North Melbourne are in the AFL.

Whilst it is an awfully structured and lopsided league, I'm not sure it could have evolved any other way. Our only hope was for a few of those mergers and relocation had of happened in the 90s and 2000s but the league was too post weak to see them through.

Plenty of possibilities, for instance: the American model, with conferences followed by common finals; the European model (a variant of the American), with a separated joint knockout tournament in the next season; the Brazilian model, with two parallel separated tournaments — one, state; another, national; and so on and so forth.

 

[1954]

Plenty of possibilities, for instance: the American model, with conferences followed by common finals; the European model (a variant of the American), with a separated joint knockout tournament in the next season; the Brazilian model, with two parallel separated tournaments — one, state; another, national; and so on and so forth.

I can recall reading somewhere that Port were interested in joining a national conference type competition as far back as the early 1980's, but unfortunately nothing came of it, and what we ended up with is really only an expanded Victorian league.

It could probably be argued the inability of the SANFL and WAFL to get onto the same page allowed the VFL to take control, become the AFL, and then develop what we have today.

 

[KenOath]

The Victorian agenda at AFL House has created the perfect environment for Victorian influence to control the AFL for a long, long time.

The only way the Victorian bias is going to be eliminated from the comp is if the interstate clubs (perhaps with the support of Geelong who may want to do away with their home (read away) games at the G now they have their own stadium they could fill 11 times a year) start working together to push for a fairer fixture with more games at the G, less games in Tassie/NT, etc.

But, the AFL have now hyped the natural rivalries between the interstate clubs to the extent that there is no way that in the current environment Port/crows, WC/Freo, Syd/GWS or Bris/GC would work together, even when they would all reap equal benefits.

At this point in time, the 'interstate' clubs exist almost entirely to prop up unsustainable vic clubs, I mean even GC amd GWS were created solely to help increase the tv rights which is what ultimately funds everything and ensures your North, Dogs, Saints still exist.

 

[kikass]

I don’t know that you can say it’s the interstate clubs that prop up the unsustainable clubs, it’s more the TV rights that does that. While you have a combined population in WA and SA smaller than Victoria it’s hard to see the media turning its back against a Victoria dominated game. Crowd numbers would suggest that SA couldn’t sustain a third club and while Fremantle remain the spuds of the competition it’s hard to see WA taking on another. A push for a Tassie team is the best course for driving a truely national competition at this time IMO.

 

[PA88]

I watched Melbourne sing their club song after the semi final win tonight and sarcastically thought, hey they have stolen Norwood's song.

Then for the first time ever, I though if they ever joined the AFL they would have to change song and colours etc like we did. Many moons ago in the 1870's Melbourne's nickname was the Redlegs after an official returned from England with a set of red socks. They changed their nickname to Fuchsias a few years later and remained that way until the 1930's when their coach famously said at half time one game - stop playing like flowers and play like demons. That stuck. So maybe Norwood could stay the Redlegs.

GremioPower if Norwood had of tried to enter the AFL in 1990 either like Port tried to get in, or had the guts to say to Port and the AFL we should go in together, I'd bet just about everything I own that they would have added yellow to their red and blue and adopted the SA state footy/sporting colours.

The last 6 weeks I have been working with a guy who served 2 stints as a director of Norwood in the 1980's, got transferred to Queensland for about 6 years and then again in the 1990's and then was on a couple of committees, is a good mate of KT, lives in the same street, we have been talking footy, so maybe that's why Norwood is in my head.

Hmm … and I am pretty sure, correct me of I'm wrong, that in the 50s Norwood changed their nickname to the Demons, I think even replicated Melbourne's jumper.

 

[PA88]

Norwood had their moment of truth to join the AFL by standing beside us and they chose to side with the losers, and then worse, lied about their intention to join the AFL and cuddled up with Basheer believing that it would be their way to win the second licence, the easy way. Nah, can't feel sorry for them. They stand today making the Magpies a Div 3 team. I agree that had they joined with us then our sanfl histories would be held in higher regard because we wouldn't have the conglomerate loser supporters from clubs that couldn't match us in the sanfl telling us that the only thing that counts are the crows 2 flags to our 1.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Plenty of possibilities, for instance: the American model, with conferences followed by common finals; the European model (a variant of the American), with a separated joint knockout tournament in the next season; the Brazilian model, with two parallel separated tournaments — one, state; another, national; and so on and so forth.

There isn't the money in Australia plus enough cities of 1 mil or more.

Australia is a natural Oligopoly market with 2 to 4 or 5 major players in most national markets that have 80%+ of the market. 2 big national supermarket chains, 4 national department stores all used to be owned by the 2 supermarket chains before one was spun off, 4 big national banks which would be 2 if not for government legislation. We have 3 or 4 big national insurance companies. We used to have 5 car manufacturers which became 4 then 3 in the 1990's and between 2015 and 2017 became zero.

18 teams with 10 in Victoria sees about 8 teams propped up by the AFL. The new expansion teams of GWS and GC will have to be heavily subsidised by the AFL for 15 to 20 years.

With 25 m people and an 18 club AFL a 16 team National Rugby League comp ok 1 from NZ, the national basketball comp of 8 teams with 1 from NZ, A League 10 teams and 1 from NZ, the netball comp with 8 teams but used to be a 5 Oz team + 5 NZ teams, Rugby Union the SANZR comp saw the 5 Oz teams cut to 4 because they all couldn't compete for $$ and players. Then there is cricket with the Big Bash T20 going thru an expansion phase and looking to expand from 8 to 10 teams.

There just isn't the corporate $$ involve to expand to a 20 and 24 team comp unless there is massive subsidies from head office.

If Australia had 60m to 80m people maybe even 100m and had 12 cities of 1 million people or more then your suggestion would make sense.

The AFL was an expansion of the VFL driven by $$$ not the desire to make the game greater so we can do better on the international stage like so many other sports in Oz. The international aspect was a big driver why other sports had national competitions long before the indigenous game went national.

Soccer in Oz had a national league in 1977. It had to disbanded it and cancel it for a year whilst they restructured a new competition and came up with financial KPI's and other KPI's to get a licence. Aussie Rules never went thru that process and given historically post WW II Melbourne has been 4 times the population of Perth and Adelaide with the mining boom seeing Perth get closer to 2 times, and the 2 northern states Aussie Rules being the 3rd and 4th ranked football code for most of the last 70 years and these 2 states having 50% of the Oz population - Melbourne was always going to be the dominate part of national league.

Bottom line the Oz sports market can't be a carbon copy of other countries who have a population of between 3 to 15 times what we have and don't have the population so heavily concentrated in only 5 cities.

 

[GremioPower]

There isn't the money in Australia plus enough cities of 1 mil or more.

Australia is a natural Oligopoly market with 2 to 4 or 5 major players in most national markets that have 80%+ of the market. 2 big national supermarket chains, 4 national department stores all used to be owned by the 2 supermarket chains before one was spun off, 4 big national banks which would be 2 if not for government legislation. We have 3 or 4 big national insurance companies. We used to have 5 car manufacturers which became 4 then 3 in the 1990's and between 2015 and 2017 became zero.

18 teams with 10 in Victoria sees about 8 teams propped up by the AFL. The new expansion teams of GWS and GC will have to be heavily subsidised by the AFL for 15 to 20 years.

With 25 m people and an 18 club AFL a 16 team National Rugby League comp ok 1 from NZ, the national basketball comp of 8 teams with 1 from NZ, A League 10 teams and 1 from NZ, the netball comp with 8 teams but used to be a 5 Oz team + 5 NZ teams, Rugby Union the SANZR comp saw the 5 Oz teams cut to 4 because they all couldn't compete for $$ and players. Then there is cricket with the Big Bash T20 going thru an expansion phase and looking to expand from 8 to 10 teams.

There just isn't the corporate $$ involve to expand to a 20 and 24 team comp unless there is massive subsidies from head office.

If Australia had 60m to 80m people maybe even 100m and had 12 cities of 1 million people or more then your suggestion would make sense.

The AFL was an expansion of the VFL driven by $$$ not the desire to make the game greater so we can do better on the international stage like so many other sports in Oz. The international aspect was a big driver why other sports had national competitions long before the indigenous game went national.

Soccer in Oz had a national league in 1977. It had to disbanded it and cancel it for a year whilst they restructured a new competition and came up with financial KPI's and other KPI's to get a licence. Aussie Rules never went thru that process and given historically post WW II Melbourne has been 4 times the population of Perth and Adelaide with the mining boom seeing Perth get closer to 2 times, and the 2 northern states Aussie Rules being the 3rd and 4th ranked football code for most of the last 70 years and these 2 states having 50% of the Oz population - Melbourne was always going to be the dominate part of national league.

Bottom line the Oz sports market can't be a carbon copy of other countries who have a population of between 3 to 15 times what we have and don't have the population so heavily concentrated in only 5 cities.

Money being equivalent, it would be a matter of distribution. The competition would be different than the current AFL; that's for sure. If it would be better, I don't know.

RussellEbertHandball – probably, the closest in kin to AFL that I know is Argentine soccer. El Zorro may explain it better, but it is centered in Buenos Aires. The "interprovince" clubs were added later (except the teams from Rosario). Clubs are still divided into those who are afilliated to AFA (equivalent to the AFL) and those who aren't (all from the "Countryside Provinces"), although this currently matters only from the third tier downwards.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Money being equivalent, it would be a matter of distribution. The competition would be different than the current AFL; that's for sure. If it would be better, I don't know.

RussellEbertHandball – probably, the closest in kin to AFL that I know is Argentine soccer. El Zorro may explain it better, but it is centered in Buenos Aires. The "interprovince" clubs were added later (except the teams from Rosario). Clubs are still divided into those who are afilliated to AFA (equivalent to the AFL) and those who aren't (all from the "Countryside Provinces"), although this currently matters only from the third tier downwards.

Yes I have used the Argentina example before a couple of times - last time earlier this year on the Footy Industry Board thread - as probably the only national sports market of the biggest sport in that market where half the teams come from one city like AFL and Melbourne. See
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/37-111.1199461/page-4#post-56930453

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

GremioPower back in 2015 in the Stadium deals thread we ended up diverting to talk about a team in Tasmania and whether it would survive. Most people think they should have a team but there is an economic survival argument.

I made 2 posts about the size of the market on page 241, one based on a famous anti-trust case in the US where the American Football League took the National Football League to court about whether the whole country was considered The Market for anti trust purposes or if each metropolitan area was a market in its own right?

The figure of 500,000-700,000 people was considered back then as the minimum sized metro area to support a professional team in a nationwide sport. See
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...shift-happening.554729/page-241#post-39850874

Then I talked about the Canadian ice hockey experience where its their national game and they can support more teams in 500-700k cities, but expansion since the mid 1990's is in the bigger cities of over 2m in southern USA warm states that dont have snow and ice and the NHL is going for the $$$, not the passionate fans and comparing that AFL's expansion in non traditional northern states compared to a Tassie team. Its why I talk about needing to have more cities of 1 million people.

Tassie is 500,000 people, but Hobart the capital in the south is 200,000 and Launceston in the north is where Hawthorn started playing games in 2001 is 100,000 people and where the overnight ferry from Melbourne docks.

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...shift-happening.554729/page-241#post-39869940

 

[El Zorro]

Money being equivalent, it would be a matter of distribution. The competition would be different than the current AFL; that's for sure. If it would be better, I don't know.

RussellEbertHandball – probably, the closest in kin to AFL that I know is Argentine soccer. El Zorro may explain it better, but it is centered in Buenos Aires. The "interprovince" clubs were added later (except the teams from Rosario). Clubs are still divided into those who are afilliated to AFA (equivalent to the AFL) and those who aren't (all from the "Countryside Provinces"), although this currently matters only from the third tier downwards.

I am not that familiar with the lower divisions but it is true at the top level. The league originated in Buenos Aires with the teams from the "interior" added later. However, they are not franchises as such as there are not allocated spots for teams for individual provinces. If the teams from Rosario, as an example, get relegated they go to the division B. No guarantees. Currently, of the 28 teams in the first division, 17 are from Buenos Aires and surrounds and 11 from the provinces. Not a bad balance in my opinion. The big 5 are all from Buenos Aires but the teams from Rosario and Cordoba are reasonably strong too.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

GremioPower I reckon your thread was read extensively by Dr Norman Ashton the author of the new book Destiny - How Port Adelaide put itself on the national stage.

Chapter 2 starts off with 15 October 1980 East Perth bid to join the VFL and quotes in full the proposal which I linked on page 14 and then he sets out a time frame and facts - but expands on them - very similar to what Magpiespower set out on page 14 and 15. Its too close to be coincidence.