Cry Babies

[Sarah]

Fitzroy44, I beg to differ. The concessions
granted to Brisbane are both UNFAIR and
UNFOUNDED. Fitzroy was treated dispicably by
the AFL, that is without question AND it is
precisely my point.

Why should Brisbane get special concessions, why should Freemantle get extra draft picks, why the Swans financial and other assistance and WHY the Melbourne clubs absolutely nothing. Why are some clubs more equal than others.

Thank you very much Fitzroy44, but I'll pass on your offer to hear examples of how the Fitzroy spirit is being kept alive by Brisbane.

The very point of my argument is that I would like to prevent OTHER Melbourne clubs from being swallowed up by interstate ones for the 'good of the game'. I want ALL clubs to continue to exist as they are, in their own right!!

I don't buy the AFL's rubbish about the need to grow the game at the expense of Melbourne clubs. I also don't agree that Brisbane should be congratulated for their efforts to incorporate Fitzroy stuff in the clubs new entity. That's what a merger is supposed to about, right?? From what I can recall, Fitzroy was denied the opportunity to negotiate and amalgamate with a team of their choice so I see it as Brisbane's duty to keep the Fitzroy people as involved as possible with the new club.

Going back to my ORIGINAL point, clubs such as North Melbourne are to be admired and congratulated for their efforts to achieve onfield success and off field security. Their efforts are all the more commendable given that their success is achieved inspite of the AFL rather than with its assistance.

 

[lewie]

Barney,
Are you trying to explain your sides pathetic roll over against the crow's the year before.

 

[TV is national]

People in states other than Victoria watch games as well. Sydney actually has the largest TV audience of any AFL club. Victoria has something over 50% of the total audience but it has an even bigger share of clubs- over 60%. The TV money is split evenly between clubs. So Vic clubs get a bigger share of the TV money than their TV audience share. Vic clubs benefit from interstate audiences not the other way around.

 

[greta]

No, he appeared in court middle of 98, and no Brisbane player was charged or had to awnser to anything, their were inquires but nothing to report as of yet.

 

[Mr Ripper]

Sarah, it was due to the decade-long procrastination of the old Fitzroy board that they weren't able to negotiate their own merger terms. The offer that North finally made was ridiculously optimistic (54 player list or something) and luckily for the Roys, Brisbane stepped in at the last minute with a far more realistic, and to me, appealing bid.
If the Fitzroy board's choice of merger partner had've been the only one available, then it would have been bye-bye to any trace of the Roys at AFL level, as the clubs would have vetoed it.
Brisbane have kept the heartbeat of the Lion alive in the AFL, and more power to 'em, I say.
Long live the Lions.

 

[Eagle_Fan]

Arch, going back a LONG way, we were allowed to draft players from the already picked-at WAFL to form our squad. What were we supposed to do? Pick juniors from surrounding schools? That WAFL pool was already weakened by the Victorian clubs who 'bought' our best players. If you think we had it easy, how about all those bought premierships in the 60's, 70's and 80's? You stripped down the WAFL and SANFL, then claimed our leagues weren't strong enough to support a (then) VFL team!
But forgetting all that (with it being 13 years ago and all), just what concessions do we get now? And is is NOW that we're talking about isn't it? The only advantage we have at draft time is having had a better look at the young WA nominees, and with the introduction of scouts, that is diminshing rapidly.

BTW- do you think the $4mil Brisbane, Adelaide and us paid (& Freo & Port?) has had no influence in preventing the death of first Footscray and Fitzroy, then prolonging the life of Fitzroy, the saving Hawthorn and Melbourne? Face it, we pay the AFL (as do Essendon, Carlton and Colingwood(?)), who dish it out to Bulldogs, North and Geelong. If they didn't need us so much, why put so much effort into the Swans and Lions?

 

[Pessimistic]

Thanks, eagle fan for helping to save my team, Hawthorn. I hope the football lesson we gave you the other night goes some way to repay you.

Speaking of fitzroy, your new jumpers are so much like them, I thought it was fitzroy. But fitzroy never played that badly

 

[Pessimistic]

'TV is national' missed my point. Ill try to explain it better. The largest part of the TV audience is Melbourne. Signage at grounds is aimed squarely at that audience (Melbourne) Ironically the signage money and sponsorship, which seems to be from the companies that are the main 'AFL' sponsors (Coca-Cola, Macdonalds etc)goes to the interstate clubs. Victorian clubs (except 2) have been denied their own grounds so have no such revenue. To further illustrate this Fitzroy were actively deterred from decent sponsorship.

Someone wondered why Melbourne supporters get so annoyed when we have it so 'good'

They're trying to get rid of clubs dammit. Just imagine it's your club. do we say ah well, they've sent north off to sydney but I can always go and see collingwood ? I think not

And Fremantle, do west australians realise that freo games are the biggest yawn going ? If they put all the freo games in sydney that'd be OK (But then you'd have re-located Freo to sydney, can't have that.

 

[Jennifer]

Been there done that. My team merged. You have no idea.
As for television coverage in Melbourne, it stinks.
But my sister in Brisbane complained about the coverage up there. Only replays no live coverage of any matches.
We think we have it bad, imagine living there.
By the way heaps of people emailed, rang and sent letters to 7 Brisbane but they dont want to know anything about AFL.

 

[Eagle_Fan]

Hey! Don't use those jumpers against me. I am in total agreeance with you. They are horrible, and most of the members (with half a brain) hate them. The way the admin treat us is disgusting, but I won't go on about it again....

 

[Scary]

Excuse me Long John - whilst I stifle a yawn - let's just wait and see who is crying come September.

And you can be rest assured that the Mighty Lions will not resort to the tactics that you cheating bastards did in the preliminary finals last year.

 

[The Dutchman!]

Scary,

As most of us Bomber supporters are saying, no use crying over spilt milk. Footy's a tough sport and sometimes very violent - but no team are Angels - my team Essendon and North clearly aren't - only difference being we don't get away with anything (ie: unbelievable number of tribunal appearances last year).

As to September, with all due respect I hope you're both crying...

Go Hird, Go Dons

Dutchy

 

[Roylion]

Speaking as a former Fitzroy member and now Brisbane Lions supporter, (and hence a Victorian born and bred) it really amuses me, when supporters (such as Sarah) and officials (such as John Elliott) of rich Victorian clubs whinge and complain about the concessions made to "interstate" clubs. While I believe that AFL clubs in Perth and Adelaide should NOT receive any concessions, it is a different story in Sydney and Brisbane. One of the objectives of the national competition, I thought is to promote the game of Australian Rules in non-footballing states of Queensland and NSW.

The recent media kerfuffle over the supposed $400,000 increase in the Brisbane Lions salary cap is a case in point. In 1999 together with the Swans, Brisbane had easily the most 'interstate' players of all 16 AFL clubs. Brisbane had 31 players on its list of 40 that came from interstate (outside Queensland), while Sydney also had had 31 players from outside NSW. The average of all the other clubs in 1999 was about 15, with Melbourne have the largest number of players from outside Victoria with 21 players from its list of 40. Other examples include West Coast with 9, Carlton with 10, Essendon with 16, Collingwood with 18 and North with 19.

The allowance granted to the Bears and continued by the Lions existed to combat the difficulties with being based in a developing football state. In actual fact in 1993, the Lions' allowance for this was $300,000. By 1999 it had fallen to $200,000, when the salary cap had increased sharply in the six years since 1993. The Sydney Swans allowance is 15% of whatever the existing salary cap is. In 2000 it will be $712,000.

The Brisbane Lions extra allowance was just a $200,000 increase to an existing allowance of $200,000 that has been in effect since 1993. Considering that the Lions and the Swans have on average about 15 extra players from interstate, if we want them to be competitive (thereby promoting football in those states and thereby ensuring the continued growth of our great game), then my feeling is the allowance for both Sydney and Brisbane is well justified.

Also first pick on a youngster from NSW and Qld for both clubs is also well justified. Surely seeing a player from their own state play in the NSW or Qld side in the premier football competition in Australia is going to generate a lot more interest in that state that 31-35 interstaters might. If this happens in 20-25 years, perhaps the allowance won't be justified, as the majority of Brisbane's side will be Queenslanders and the majority of Sydney's side New South Welshmen.

Supporters like Sarah have also have short memories. The Victorian clubs back in the late 80's and early 90's were quite happy to vote for the entry of the interstate clubs and were also quite happy to pocket the proceeds of the massive licence fees that these clubs had to pay. These fees kept AT LEAST six Victorian clubs afloat and allowed Fitzroy to soldier on for another ten years. The Victorian clubs also voted for the forced removal of South Melbourne to Sydney (against the members' wishes) and the merger of the Bears and Fitzroy (against the wishes of the Fitzroy board) for "strategic reasons". It was the Victorian clubs that knocked back the merger between North and Fitzroy because they feared creating a "super club" and also stipulated to the Brisbane Bears that only eight players were to be taken from Fitzroy. For supporters such as Sarah and officials such as Elliott and Eddie McGuire to slam concessions to these two clubs now, smacks of a complete reluctance to take responsibility for the consequences of their club's own actions and also a complete lack of understanding of the problems Sydney and Brisbane face in a non-footballing area of Australia. When it comes down to it, supporters like Sarah rarely think of the 'big picture' and continually put the self-interests of their club or state first. Sydney and Brisbane's wretched beginnings were caused in a large way by the Victorian clubs and the concessions that were slammed by Sarah, don't even go a small way into balancing the ledger.

Going on her comments above, I'm sure Sarah would be well satisfied to see a Victorian club win the AFL flag year after year in what is supposedly a national competition. Well Sarah, there is a competition you can go to see that happen...it's called the VFL. Enjoy.

 

[Sarah]

Roylion, honey, this is getting boring!

Looks like you've done lots of cutting and pasting from the AFL propaganda pages and, yes, everything you write makes perfect sense.

However, you have managed to overlook my main point. I don't resent that the "interstate" clubs receive assistance per se. What I resent is that the AFL (supposedly for the good of the game nationally) is systematically yet subtly 'Fitzroying' Melbourne clubs because it believes that there are too many clubs in Melbourne.

New policies are implemented and the goal posts keep moving as Melbourne clubs meet the challenges put to them by the AFL. At one stage it was claimed clubs needed 20,000 members to survive. When memberships rose accordingly it was revealed this wasn't enough something else was required and so on. And all the while the AFL continues to drip feed Brisbane, Sydney and any other 'interstate' club to ensure their success.

Now as I've mentioned before, I know my club is here to stay. What I would like is for other teams to remain also. Certainly, lets grow the game but not at the expense of the Melbourne teams or any team for that matter.

The main point of my argument can be summed up like this: Brisbane were provided salary cap assistance to help retain their players after one, I repeat - ONE, 'developing' player was lured away by another team.

If the Hawks, for instance, find themselves in hardship due to the demise of Waverley or if Geelong suffer another hicup this year - will the AFL rush to provide them with assistance? Or will it move with lightening speed to aid their demise?

 

[Roylion]

C'mon Sarah, you're kidding aren't you? You now say you don't resent interstate clubs getting concessions and yet in a former posting YOU said...(and I quote) "The concessions granted to Brisbane are both UNFAIR and UNFOUNDED." I've already stated why I think they aren't! I'm sure you do find the facts boring......but of course never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

And no, what I said was not from AFL propaganda pages, all of what I said was reported quite clearly in the print media, as well as on TV.

Also Victorian clubs do get assistance from the AFL. It was reported in the media that Hawthorn and St Kilda are getting significant financial assistance from the AFL who have promised to underwrite their membership for the next couple of years, because of their move from Waverley. As well as this, particularly in Hawthorn's case, they also received assistance from the AFL in gaining a favorable draw where they play the majority of their matches in Victoria on a Saturday afternoon. This was at Hawthorn's request. As well as this, Essendon, Carlton and Collingwood have received assistance from the AFL in seeming to have a permanent mortgage on playing each other on public holidays such as the Queen's Birthday etc. While it is true that these clubs have large followings anyway, (and the AFL wants to maximise attendances) thanks to the AFL they are able to easily reap huge profits, more-so than the other Victorian clubs. I'd like to see Melbourne vs. North Melbourne at the MCG on the Queen's Birthday Holiday on future years in order to give these clubs a chance to cultivate larger memberships and sponsorship deals and ensure their chances of survival in Melbourne. However that ain't gonna happen!

 

[RoyLion]

Sarah, one other thing...you also didn't read my posting very well. Brisbane were NOT provided with salary cap assistance to in your words, "help retain their players after one, I repeat - ONE, 'developing' player was lured away by another team". They have had that salary cap assistance for the last eight years, since 1993. All that changed was the amount, and so it should... considering that the Swans salary cap is 15% of whatever the salary cap happens to be in any given year. Brisbane's allowance actually fell from $300,000 in 1997 to $200,000 in 1999, while the salary cap rose. Brisbane's extra allowance was about 4% of the existing salary cap, surely not a huge benefit for a club in a developing state, with very few Aussie Rules players per capita, (compared to Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and even Tasmania) and with 75% of their list from outside Queensland. It is now about 8%, still far below the Swans 15%.

 

[Dave]

Damn, I wish my club had an extra 400 large in the salary cap. Considering the cost of living in Brisbane is lower than either Sydney or Melbourne it's hard for the AFL to justify it on any grounds other than they want to see Brisbane successful. What they said last year was just absolute rubbish.

 

[Pessimistic]

Sydney and Brisbane get assistance, Freo soon will

Not sure about the others But in Victoria, Essendon, Bulldogs, Saints, Geelong, Collingwood and North get 'assistance' in the form of contracts to play games at colonial. St Kilda also get membership underwritten because the contract with the AFL over waverley was broken, as do Hawthorn. North also get assistance due to agreeing to play home games in sydney. Carlton get assistance because they waived their right to have 16 games a year at optus.

That leaves poor old Richmond and Melbourne with negligibel assistance. I'd be feeling a little left out if I was them

 

[RoyLion]

Yeah right Dave. I'm sure the costs of relocating three-quarters of your list to Queensland or NSW, is much lower than a Victorian club who have to relocate on average a third of their list from interstate. Some of these costs are included in the salary cap. Anyway isn't that part of the aims of the national competition.... to be able to attract good quality players to a developing football state and encourage the growth of the game there? Is that what you want to see the Queensland club reduced to? Hacks and rookies? Bottom of the ladder on a regular basis, because they have few quality players. That'll really promote the Aussie Rules in Queensland won't it! Queensland... you know... the second fastest growing state in Australia in terms of population and economic growth? Hang on! Haven't we seen that scenario before... and weren't they called the Brisbane Bears?

When Sydney or Brisbane do manage to recruit good quality players via the draft, often they go back they go to their home state, after their first contract finishes. I've got no problem with healthy competition for the services of players...God knows Fitzroy lost out on numerous occasions in this area..., but the reasons for Fitzroy losing players were far different from Brisbane or Sydney. Players leaving clubs to go "home", happens in all states and to all clubs, but has less impact in Victoria, SA and WA because they have strong football backgrounds and can easily recruit ready made replacements from the strong WAFL, SANFL and in Victoria the U-18's and the VFL. You could nearly count on two hands, star AFL players that were born and raised in NSW and Queensland, for example Michael Voss, Wayne Carey, Neale and Terry Daniher among a couple of others are all I can think of recently in the last 10-15 years.

Of course the cost of living in Brisbane is lower than in Sydney! Why do you think Brisbane's assistance is roughly 7% of the existing salary cap, while the Swans is 15%!
There are far more justifications for the salary cap allowance, within the context of the promoting the expansion of our great game, than merely the cost of living! Fremantle dosen't deserve salary cap assistance, as it's woes are more to do with the way it is run, rather than combating difficulties because it is in a developing state.

 

[Sarah]

Roylion, you're absoluely right - I've let my emotions cloud my reasoning... I've contradicted myself and I have expressed resentment of the concessions received by non Victorian clubs.

Let me try again. I resent that the Victorian teams do not, and will not, receive anything like the level of assistance given to 'interstate' clubs.

I am a passionate Essendon supporter - have been and always will be. My partner (and his family) are Fitzroy supporters. They suffered, as I'm sure you and other Fitzroy supporters did during Fitzroys last days and during all the rubbish (some Fitzroy's responsiblity but mostly the AFL's) that led to Fitzroy's demise. My partner (and his family) no longer follow football. They have only a passing interest in the newly formed Coburg/Fitzroy VFL side. A few of their old Fitzroy mates now follow Brisbane, some follow other AFL teams but many (like my partner and his family) no longer have any interest in AFL football.

In my original postings I defended North Melbourne (I remind you I feel no particular affection for this side). I stated that I felt that their success deserved special recognition especially given their lack of resources in comparison to most other teams. They cop a lot of flack from opposition supporters (including Essendon, I admit) about their shabby home training base, their lack of finances and their too small supporter base. The club is aware of these deficiencies and that's why they worked hard to achieve what they have. They hope their on-field success over the last decade will be the foundation from which the club can establish off-field security.

And, from what I can see, it appears to be working. When I went to school their were hardly any North supporters. At my nephews primary school there a quite number of wannabe Archer's and Mckernans. It will be a few years till they become financial supporters of their club. In the meantime, North will certainly undergo the normal 'rebuilding process'. My concern is that this period of vunerability will be exploited (as Fitzroy's was) and be seen as an opportunity to rid the team of one of the too many Melbourne teams. In the national interest, of course!

I share the same concern for the Bulldogs, StKilda and so on and it's a concern shared by the supporters of these 'vunerable' clubs. That's partially why each game is a 'must win'. The opposite of success is not failure but extinction.

My arguments may seen irrational and emotional rubbish to many but if you take the opportunity to query a supporter of 'vunerable' club, I think you'll find they agree with me. Recent surveys conducted by the Sun newspaper indicated that many supporters of Melbourne clubs believe that their club will cease to exist (in their current state) in 10 years or so. The AFL continually state that 10 teams are too many in Melbourne. Even Ross what's his face (who has no right to express an opinion on the matter) stated recently in the papers he still believes some Melbourne teams have to go.

The powers that be are intent on 'growing the game' elsewhere in Australia. They do not care that most supporters will lose interest in AFL football once their team ceases to exist and that many others are disenchanted by the AFL's corporate attitude.

I appreciate that it would be unreasonable to expect the AFL to step in with financial aid when negligent club administrators mismanage their clubs affairs. What I would like is for the AFL to intervene with a 'reasonable' level of assitance when a club finds itself in the rebuilding stage. I would like for the AFL to offer a degree of assistance that would enable these clubs to remain in existance rather than for the AFL to assist in these club's demise.

I would like the AFL to acknowledge that all clubs have the right to exist and that it has an obligation to all clubs not just those that are spreading the word outside Victoria.

As I said in my previous posts, I hate that Fitzroy no longer exists and I hate all rubbish that led to the clubs demise. I believe that the AFL has an obligation to all clubs. I would like them to ensure that no other club (Melbourne or otherwise) suffers the same fate as Fitzroy.

Take me up on whatever you wish, but all the other bullshit aside, that IS my main point.

 

[Eagle_Fan]

I've said it before, but Freo do need and should get some kind assistance. Take the Jeff White debacle. He (and Golden Joe) screwed that club completely, after they helped develop him (a lot a time, money & expertise) into one of the best potential ruckmen in the league. The same with Steven Tingay, who only stayed in Melbourne when they offered him a last-minute contract that's turned out to be illegal. They need to draft some quality, middle-aged players to get the club started.
We 'apparently' (I don't remember) were able to draft a number of players from the local league, that has produced McKenna, Mainy, Lewis & many from the premiership teams. We got that help then (but don't now, despite what you might hear!), and it helped establish us. Give the Dockers a bit of help and they'll be fine... Not so boring, hey Pes?

 

[Dave]

Roylion,
yeah, Brisbane would really be reduced to "Hacks and rookies" without the extra salary cap allowance. They struggled sooo badly last year didn't they?

"When Sydney or Brisbane do manage to recruit good quality players via the draft, often they go back they go to their home state, after their first contract finishes. "

I can recall Brisbane losing one player to his home state and Sydney two, though they got Schwass in return for Grant. Other than Buckley who left because he only ever wanted to play for Collingwood (and wouldn't have stayed no matter what he was offered)
neither has lost players of the calibre of Lockett, Roos, Lynch, Glenndening, Allen, Wanganeen, Jarman, Robran. I'd been keen to know who all these players that Sydney and Brisbane have lost after their first contracts were, as perhaps they returned home because they were CUT from the list. Guys like Leppitsch certainly haven't had any problems adjusting.


"There are far more justifications for the salary cap allowance, within the context of the promoting the expansion of our great game, than merely the cost of living! "

Such as? The only justification I can see is to help Brisbane win a premiership by allowing them to maintain a stronger list then they otherwise would. I have no problem with the league wanting to grow the game nationally, but when we have the CEO whining about "footy equity" in respect to the MCC contract and how unfair it is on one hand and then handing out salary cap extensions to a club that finished third on the ladder that year on the other it comes across as a tad hypocritical.

 

[Roylion]

Sarah, I was a fully paid up adult member of Fitzroy from 1983 to 1996 and as you can probably appreciate was devastated when they "merged" with the Bears. Understandably as a Fitzroy supporter I used to get quite annoyed at the concessions that appeared to be given to interstate clubs, when Fitzroy appeared to get very little and was definitely not helped by the AFL. However I also quite distinctly rememeber that in the late 70's and the early 80's the VFL/AFL was dying. Crowds were poor, interest appeared to be an all time low and over half of the clubs were in debt. The national competition turned that sitution around. Fitzroy however continued to suffer both on and off the field, and they along with the Swans and the Bears continued to occupy the lowest rungs of the ladder. On reflection it quickly became clear that the early problems that the Bears and Sydney clubs had was partly because of private ownership, partly because of being in a developing state and partly because the lack of support from the older Victorian clubs who guarded their players and purse-strings jealously. Hence at various stages during the 80's and the 90's both clubs nearly went to the wall. Players just did not want to play for them. My point is that while there have been some very unfair rules in the past to allow the Bears and the Swans to become competetive, such as the priority signing of uncontracted players from other clubs outside of the draft system. However this came about because of the very poor deals given to both clubs in the late 80's and early 90's which were ratified by the Victorian clubs who have the voting majority. Thankfully these uncontracted player priority signings do not apply anymore.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to allow Brisbane and Sydney a salary cap increase 7%-15% above what is normal and first pick of a rookie from their home state to assist in the development of home grown footballers. These are the only concessions that Brisbane and Sydney get.

I understand the point you are trying to make and I personally would love to see all existing Melbourne clubs survive in the national competition. However with nine (excluding Geelong) clubs in one city in a 16 club national competition (a situation unlikely to be found in any other national competition anywhere in the Western World), survival is going to be difficult. I know. Hopefully the AFL can render some assistance, as it has already done for some Victorian clubs. However the removal of salary cap concessions from Brisbane and Sydney is not the way to do it.

 

[Don]

Young Players that left Sydney after 1 contract
Darren Gasper
Adam Heuskes
Anthony Rocca
Shannon Grant
Brett O'Farrell

 

[Roylion]

Dave, you conveniently forgot that Brisbane finished last in 1998, and only made the finals for the first time in 1995, after "winning" three wooden spoons from 1987-1994.
Incidentally Brisbane finished fourth last year..not third. Where did the Swans finish last year? 15% of the salary cap, (nearly double that of Brisbane) and they scraped in eighth.

Why should Brisbane or Sydney be penalised for being forced to recruit quality players from outside their home states of NSW and Queensland and then having to use some of their salary cap allowance to house the players as well as providing employment for them? 31 (77%) of the players on the 1999 Brisbane and Sydney senior lists came from outside NSW or Queensland. The next highest club was Melbourne with 21 players (52%), while Essendon had 16 (40%), Carlton 10 (25%) and West Coast 9. (22%). Queensland and NSW are NOT Aussie Rules football states!

Therefore to make these two clubs reasonably competitive, thereby promoting the game against rival football codes such as league, soccer and Union and therefore ensuring the status of the Aussie Rules as Australia's premier game, is I think, ample justification for salary cap concessions for these two clubs.

As to the " footy equity" argument, couldn't it also be argued that interstate clubs are disadvanged having to travel the length and breadth of the country for half their games? Victorian clubs like Richmond in 1999, played 17 of their 22 games in Melbourne, the majority at the MCG, where the Grand Final, one preliminary final and a few other finals games are also played. How could have West Coast played in Melbourne last year? They won their first final comfortably and ended up playing Carlton which lost their final by 76 points, at a ground in which Carlton held all the advantages, because they were familiar with the ground and also becuase they didn't have to travel.

There have been quite a few examples of players leaving (or VERY nearly leaving) apart from the obvious one of Buckley. David Calthorpe..remember him..wanted to return to Victoria and did so, even though his contract wasn't even up. John Barker wanted to return to Victoria and did so after his first contract ended. At least the Lions got something for him by trading him. The Lions had great difficulty in re-signing several players recently because they wanted to return to their home state. Simon Black is an example of this... it was only the good year that the Lions had in 1999 and the fact the Lions re-located his parents and girlfriend to Queensland that he agreed to stay. Chris Johnson has also wanted to return to Victoria (twice!), the Lions did the same for him as for Simon Black. They've also done the same for Des Headland...more expense. (I realise that all clubs do this, just that the Lions and Swans do it much more for their large number of young recruits from interstate.) A couple of years ago Chris Scott expressed a wish to play with his brother Brad and was talking about leaving to return to his home state. Trent Bartlett wanted to go home to Victoria and was traded. Matthew Primus refused point blank to come up to Queensland, because he wanted to return to his home state of South Australia. One of his other main reasons for refusing to play with the Lions was he didn't want to run the risk of playing in the sub-standard QSFL, if returning from injury or if omitted. The Lions had to trade him to Port Adelaide. I'm sure with a bit of research I could name many others.

The common denominator for many of these players appears to be the desire to return "home". Considering most high quality players come from Victoria, SA and WA, surely you can seeDave, it becomes more difficult for Brisbane and Sydney (more so than other clubs) to attract and keep high quality players.