Did Gil just put mergers back on the agenda?

[Walshawk]

When asked about whether we would go to 20 teams he said “18 or 20”. I thought it was a slip of the tongue but he continued… “I think we will end up at an even number. The league has seen expansion and contraction and that will play out“

I reckon the AFL would prefer to stick with 18 teams, and that there will be incentives put in place for a merger. GWS being the most likely target. If it doesn’t happen, we will go to 20,

 

[Colonial]

When asked about whether we would go to 20 teams he said “18 or 2” I thought it was a slip of the tongue but he continued… “I think we will end up at an even number. The league has seen expansion and contraction and that will play out“

I reckon the AFL would prefer to stick with 18 teams, and that there will be incentives put in place for a merger. GWS being the most likely target. If it doesn’t happen, we will go to 20,

If true.

Great so the brilliant idea is to not only keep us as part time in Western Sydney (which has meant a slow take up) and in Canberra but for us to as to jump in bed with a failed Melbourne club?

Wonderful.

Can’t see a problem with that at all.

 

[Walshawk]

If true.

Great so the brilliant ideal is to not only keep us as part time in Western Sydney (which has meant a slow take up) and in Canberra but for us to as to jump in bed with a failed Melbourne club?

Wonderful.

Can’t see a problem with that at all.

Something has to change with GWS. They will give it every chance. If Sydney host Gather Round 2027, and possibly a GF in 2028 while they rebuild the MCG Warne Stand, and there is still minimal interest, changes will be forced.

 

[Colonial]

Something has to change with GWS. They will give it every chance. If Sydney host Gather Round 2027, and possibly a GF in 2028 while they rebuild the MCG Warne Stand, and there is still minimal interest, changes will be forced.

Easy start to fix. Stop us being part time. Gives the look of one foot out the front door currently.

Not changing that then adding a merger to it will make things worse.

AFL says they were in for the hard yards, and knew it will take a generational effort. Yet took the easy coin from Canberra.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Its probably just a shot across the bow type statement.

Its probably also an outgoing CEO who is talking pracalities rather than policy.

For the AFL to merge a couple of sides it would have to be voluntary and the club directors wear that heat like in 1996 with Melbourne and Hawthorn.

To kill off a team, means the AFL executives and commissioners have to wear the heat, maybe even death threats.

Its easy for an outgoing CEO who doesnt have to wear that burden to make a statement that there might be a reduction in teams.

I think it means SFA.

 

[Kwality]

Easy start to fix. Stop us being part time. Gives the look of one foot out the front door currently.

Not changing that then adding a merger to it will make things worse.

AFL says they were in for the hard yards, and knew it will take a generational effort. Yet took the easy coin from Canberra.

It will be interesting to see how the AFL administration structure the Tas club, both off & on field.
What sticks in my throat is so called 'priority picks' when the current teams have the top 700+/- players locked in. Priority gives 701st pick, WOW!

What lessons should the AFL have learned from the formation of GWS GG ?

 

[Sphynx]

Its probably just a shot across the bow type statement.

Its probably also an outgoing CEO who is talking pracalities rather than policy.

For the AFL to merge a couple of sides it would have to be voluntary and the club directors wear that heat like in 1996 with Melbourne and Hawthorn.

To kill off a team, means the AFL executives and commissioners have to wear the heat, maybe even death threats.

Its easy for an outgoing CEO who doesnt have to wear that burden to make a statement that there might be a reduction in teams.

I think it means SFA.

Melbourne and Hawthorn are examples of why it can very rarely happen anymore under current clubs ownership structures. That didn't even get passed the first hurdle.

All of the Melbourne clubs are owned by the members.

They would have to vote in favor of it under their clubs constitution (Not happening)

The AFL commission can't ship a club off (As North showed), they don't own the game.

The clubs own the league essentially and has final say on it's ultimate structure.

I believe it's a 70% majority required.

Once Tassie comes in, that would mean 14 clubs need to vote for that club to be relocated, so you would need 5 Victorian clubs in additional to every other Non-Victorian club to vote to relocate one of the others.

Good luck.

 

[Colonial]

It will be interesting to see how the AFL administration structure the Tas club, both off & on field.
What sticks in my throat is so called 'priority picks' when the current teams have the top 700+/- players locked in. Priority gives 701st pick, WOW!

What lessons should the AFL have learned from the formation of GWS GG ?

Local knowledge is a must.

Despite what the trolls on here say, there are plenty of people knee deep in footy in Western Sydney that should of been used as well as businessmen and women.
Instead we got people either from Melbourne or Eastern Suburbs of Sydney. Which is how we ended up in deals with Manly and, in my opinion the big one, Canberra.
We were also gullible to believe the Mayor of Blacktown and NSW Cricket with their overtures regarding Blacktown.

Our short comings are not so much 1 big cut, though Canberra is a decent one, but a 100 little cuts.

I don’t think that will be an issue with Tassie at all. It will be built through Tassie, like the Jack Jumpers were.

As for start up concessions I have been amused to see a few in the media down in Vic offer up opinions and most are much more than what the Suns and even the Giants got. Amusing considering the clubs got bashed from pillar to post from media and fans.

Do I know a way? No. But I’m not paid to. Just hope the club is a success.
All for more clubs away from the fishbowl.

All this my opinion of course, one not shared by a lot of my fellow Giants.

 

[kranger]

If there was a merger, and that is a big IF, it should be between two Melbourne teams.

If it was instead a Melbourne team and an expansion team (GC/GWS), in an attempt to grow the expansion team, with no guarantee of success. It would go the same way as Fitzroy and just be killing off the Melbourne team as fans loose access to home games. Admittedly Brisbane Lions do still have a larger following in Victoria compared to all other non-Vic teams other than Sydney/South Melbourne.

But if it were two Melbourne teams that mutually agreed it could work as fans still keep their level of access to their club. Imagine two teams with 50,000 members, 300,000 fans and $45m revenue (less than $30m without AFL distributions). This basically puts them in the bottom rung of clubs off the field.

There are some disgruntled people so only 80% of people and sponsors move on from the original teams to the merged team and there is only one portion of AFL distributions instead of two. You still end up with 80,000 members, 480,000 fans and ~$60m revenue [$30m x 0.8 x 2 + ($10m smaller AFL distribution)].

That basically takes two struggling Melbourne teams and turns them into an off-field powerhouse. If more than 80% of people stick with the merged team, they are even stronger. It also means the saved AFL distribution money can go to other clubs.

It doesn’t however do anything to help the expansion clubs to grow and become on par with the other clubs.

What if less than 80% of people move across to the merged team, well you would probably want it to be more than 70% retention to proceed. Also what about the lost 20,000 members, 120,000 fans and $12m revenue to the sport, well perhaps it is for the greater good, as future generations of kids and sponsors in Melbourne would be divided up by 8 teams on a more equal footing instead of 9 teams on a wide spectrum of size.

 

[Roylion]

There are some disgruntled people so only 80% of people and sponsors move on from the original teams to the merged team and there is only one portion of AFL distributions instead of two. You still end up with 80,000 members, 480,000 fans and ~$60m revenue [$30m x 0.8 x 2 + ($10m smaller AFL distribution)].

That basically takes two struggling Melbourne teams and turns them into an off-field powerhouse. If more than 80% of people stick with the merged team, they are even stronger. It also means the saved AFL distribution money can go to other clubs.

It doesn’t however do anything to help the expansion clubs to grow and become on par with the other clubs.

What if less than 80% of people move across to the merged team, well you would probably want it to be more than 70% retention to proceed.

80% retention certainly can't be guaranteed. If there isnt enough of the original clubs' identity (colours, name, emblem, club song etc.) in the new entity then 80% of the two original supporters bases will definitely not follow the new club. If the 'Melbourne Hawks' or the 'Fitzroy Bulldogs' had somehow come to fruition, one of the supporter bases would have deserted enmasse and the other supporter base would have been reduced by those disgruntled at the dilution of their original club's identity. That's because both proposed mergers were seen as one-sided by one of the supporter bases.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Reckon there's a bit of pressure on the saints to merge.
They boned a coach who had them on the right path very quickly for a coach who boned them.
I think they were told they needed to start performing quickly or the league wouldn't back them.

Millions in debt with no assets, continually average crowds (even against big teams)

I believe they'll be "encouraged" to merge with GC to the same tune that the lionsnwere forced to merge with the bears

 

[Walshawk]

Melbourne and Hawthorn are examples of why it can very rarely happen anymore under current clubs ownership structures. That didn't even get passed the first hurdle.

All of the Melbourne clubs are owned by the members.

They would have to vote in favor of it under their clubs constitution (Not happening)

The AFL commission can't ship a club off (As North showed), they don't own the game.

The clubs own the league essentially and has final say on it's ultimate structure.

I believe it's a 70% majority required.

Once Tassie comes in, that would mean 14 clubs need to vote for that club to be relocated, so you would need 5 Victorian clubs in additional to every other Non-Victorian club to vote to relocate one of the others.

Good luck.

Not quite right.

• Melbourne supporters voted YES to merge with Hawthorn. So it can/could happen.
• The clubs have to vote 70% of overturn a Commission decision. So you only need six to vote YES to any decision (like Tas).

 

[Walshawk]

Reckon there's a bit of pressure on the saints to merge.
They boned a coach who had them on the right path very quickly for a coach who boned them.
I think they were told they needed to start performing quickly or the league wouldn't back them.

Millions in debt with no assets, continually average crowds (even against big teams)

I believe they'll be "encouraged" to merge with GC to the same tune that the lionsnwere forced to merge with the bears

GC will be OK once they start winning. Their crowds are already higher than GWS with half the games won.
West Sydney Saints, playing eight home games at Showgrounds (as per status quo), and three at Marvel, guaranteeing nine games in Sydney and eight in Melbourne (plus one in Geelong every second season).

 

[Colonial]

GC will be OK once they start winning. Their crowds are already higher than GWS with half the games won.
West Sydney Saints, playing eight home games at Showgrounds (as per status quo), and three at Marvel, guaranteeing nine games in Sydney and eight in Melbourne (plus one in Geelong every second season).

No

 

[Roylion]

Not quite right.

• Melbourne supporters voted YES to merge with Hawthorn. So it can/could happen.

Only because of the perception that the merger was in their favour. "Melbourne Hawks, with a Hawk logo on the Melbourne jumper, playing out of the MCG and even possibly the song (see below) was weighted in favour of Melbourne

• The clubs have to vote 70% of overturn a Commission decision. So you only need six to vote YES to any decision (like Tas).

75% of the clubs need to approve any change to the structure of the Competition that is proposed by the Commission. The Commision doesnt make a final decision in this regard, until the clubs have approved the proposed change.

 

[Dirty Bird]

Roylion - What would your thoughts have been with a complete merger of Fitzroy with another Victorian team?

I'm not against mergers, but I am against merging 2 teams from different states. at least if it's between 2 teams from Melbourne, both fans can still attend games.

 

[Roylion]

Roylion - What would your thoughts have been with a complete merger of Fitzroy with another Victorian team?

Depends who it was. The main aim for me would have been retaining as much of the Fitzroy identity and image as possible.

For example the Melbourne Lions would have worked.

Name: Melbourne-Fitzroy Football Club (trading as the "Melbourne Lions").
Home Ground: MCG
Training Ground: Junction Oval (Melbourne's training ground at the time and Fitzroy's old home ground)
Colours. Red, navy bliue and gold. The guernsey would have been Melbourne's existing jumper with a large gold Fitzroy Lion on the front. (Same as the jumper that was agreed upon in the 1986 merger proposal).
Theme Song: "We are the boys from old Melbourne. We wear the colours, red, gold and blue" (to the tune of the La Marseilles)
Coach: Neil Balme
Captain: Garry Lyon. Vice Captain: Brad Boyd
Board of Directors: 12 (6 Melbourne, 6 Fitzroy). Chairman Ian Ridley

Below was an article written by journalist Ashley Browne published in The Age speculating on how a Melbourne-Fitzroy merger in 1995, (to begin in 1996) to be called the Melbourne Lions might have worked, when there was media speculation that the two clubs were talking.

The team that was nominated by Ashley Browne for Round 1 1996 was:

Backs: Steven Febey (Melb) Simon Hawking (Fitz) Trent Cummings (Fitz)
Half-Backs: Glenn Lovett (Melb), David Nietz ( Melb), Jeff Farmer (Melb)
Centres: Stephen Tingay (Melb), Simon Atkins (Fitz), Matthew Febey (Melb)
Half-Forwards: Jason Baldwin (Fitz), David Schwarz (Melb), Chris Johnson (Fitz)
Forwards: Jarrod Molloy (Fitz), Garry Lyon (Melb) , Sean Charles (Melb)
Followers: Jim Stynes (Melb), Brad Boyd (Melb), Andy Lovell (Melb)
Interchange: John Barker (Fitz), Rowan Warfe (Fitz), Matthew Dent (Fitz), Todd Viney (Melb)

The actual article that was published in the Age at the end of 1995 was as follows

"More than 60,000 fans bathed in the MCG sunshine yesterday as the AFL’s two newest clubs, the Melbourne Lions and the Port Adelaide Steelers, bounced the ball to start the 1996 season and the league's centenary celebrations.

Despite a sizeable contingent of Port Adelaide fans – every bit as rabid as their counterparts from Collingwood – all eyes were on the Lions and how the players from the old Melbourne and Fitzroy clubs would meld.

That question was answered during a withering nine goal third quarter burst that broke the game open. Melbourne was outstanding.

Neil Balme, the unanimous coach of the new club has put together an outstanding side. Skipper Gary Lyon booted nine goals for the Lions, while David Schwarz showed no ill-effects from last year’s two knee reconstructions, pulling in eight marks from centre-half forward and booting five goals of his own.

But it was the on-ball brigade of that was the most impressive feature of the new side. Vice captain Brad Boyd amassed 34 possessions while shutting Steeler captain Craig Bradley out of the contest.

Boyd was always the class performer of the old Fitzroy midfield, but yesterday he combined superbly with with Andy Lovell and Stephen Tingay to mesmerise the Steelers. Simon Atkins another of the former Lions, gave great drive from the centre after half time.

By contrast it was a miserable homecoming for Andrew Obst, the sole top ten player the Demons were forced to offload under the rules of the merger. Obst has found happiness with Port Adelaide the club from which he was recruited to Melbourne in 1990, but he was thrashed yesterday by Glenn Lovett.

There was much speculation that the side would be dominated by former Demons. But the Fitzroy contigent, particularly full back Simon Hawking who kept Scott Hodges to one goal and Chris Johnson who has already struck an uncanny understanding with Schwarz and Lyon.

Off the field it was a grand day for the Lions. Marketing manager John Birt reported a brisk sale of membership tickets and estimated that the sales were already approaching 15,000, which means the club will not need to under-write its membership sales, as it would have if the Lions had sold 12,720. (20% more than the 10,500 the Demons sold last year).

"The TV campaign the AFL helped finance has captured our supporters attention. They understand that a membership ticket represents good value, particularly when ours are $20 cheaper than any other club's" said Birt, who predicted that with 10 MCG home games still to come, the Lions membership could top 20,000. And Birt speaks from a position of strength, having handled Collingwood’s membership during the heady days following the 1990 premiership.

Club chairman Dyson Hore-Lacy was ecstatic after the match. “This is why we decided to resume those 1994 negotiations with Melbourne, rather than merge with Brisbane like some at the AFL would have preferred, “ he said.

“We’ve just won a huge game at our new home ground the MCG and the atmosphere was better than anything we experienced at the Western Oval and certainly better than watching it on TV from the Gabba.”

And with that he headed off to celebrate at 'Smithy’s', the new social club at the Junction Oval named after the late Norm Smith, who played for and coached both Melbourne and Fitzroy.

It was built for the Lions with a $700,000 handout from the AFL, which was to be used specifically for the creation of a social club."

-----------------------------

A possible Melbourne Lions List of 45 players, say if the clubs had merged at the start of 1996 and both individual clubs had already participated in the 1996 National Draft, might have read as follows.

Simon ATKINS, Jason BALDWIN, John BARKER, Brad BOYD, Nick CARTER, Brett CHANDLER, Sean CHARLES, Shane CLAYTON, Brett COOK, Trent CUMMINGS, Matthew DENT, Jeff FARMER, Matthew FEBEY, Steven FEBEY, Jeremy GUARD, Simon HAWKING, Jeff HILTON, Paul HOPGOOD, Chris JOHNSON, David KOWAL, Andy LOVELL, Brett LOVETT, Glenn LOVETT, Garry LYON, James MANSON, Anthony MELLINGTON, John McCARTHY, Jarrod MOLLOY, Danny MORTON, David NIETZ, Stephen PAXMAN, Martin PIKE, Matthew PRIMUS, Paul PRYMKE, Peter ROHDE, John ROMBOTIS, David SCHWARZ, Marcus SEECAMP, Shaun SMITH, Jim STYNES, Stephen TINGAY, Todd VINEY, Rowan WARFE, Graeme YEATS, and Mark ZANOTTI,

Via the draft from 1997 onwards ,the Melbourne Lions would have had access to Jonathon Brown and Jack Viney under the father-son rule.

I would have very readily supported the above.

It came very close to happening in 1986.

I'm not against mergers, but I am against merging 2 teams from different states. at least if it's between 2 teams from Melbourne, both fans can still attend games.

Yep. Based on the Brisbane Lions experience, an interstate merger by a Melbourne club would be the absolute last option. From being promised a minimum of six games in Melbourne per year in 1996, the Lions have often had scheduled five and occasionally four games in Victoria per year since that time.

That's the future for the supporters of any Melbourne based club "merging" interstate.

 

[Sphynx]

Not quite right.

• Melbourne supporters voted YES to merge with Hawthorn. So it can/could happen.
• The clubs have to vote 70% of overturn a Commission decision. So you only need six to vote YES to any decision (like Tas).

I understand Melbourne voted Yes.

But Hawthorn voted No.

Which was my point.

To push through a merger, you need to get the majority vote of two member owned clubs more than likely...

Given what has happened to Fitzroy and to a lesser extent South Melbourne, most local fans understand any merger is likely a death sentence.

 

[Walshawk]

Only because of the perception that the merger was in their favour. "Melbourne Hawks, with a Hawk logo on the Melbourne jumper, playing out of the MCG and even possibly the song (see below) was weighted in favour of Melbourne






75% of the clubs need to approve any change to the structure of the Competition that is proposed by the Commission. The Commision doesnt make a final decision in this regard, until the clubs have approved the proposed change.

Has this changed then?

The Clubs however retain specific powers in relation to the admission, relocation and merging of clubs.

• Any decision by the commission to admit or relocate a club or approve the merger of clubs can be reversed by the clubs at a duly constituted meeting of clubs called within 14 days of receiving formal notice of a Commission decision to admit, relocate or approve a merger of clubs.
• A two thirds majority is required to overturn any such decision by the commission. Three clubs may requisition a meeting of clubs to reverse a decision by the Commission to admit or relocate or approve a merge of clubs. Clubs cannot be merged unless the clubs who are party to the merger first agree.
• Clubs also have a reserve power on the possible expulsion of a club from the competition. Any decision by the Commission to expel a club must be ratified at a general meeting of clubs by a simple majority.

 

[Roylion]

Has this changed then?

The Clubs however retain specific powers in relation to the admission, relocation and merging of clubs.

• Any decision by the commission to admit or relocate a club or approve the merger of clubs can be reversed by the clubs at a duly constituted meeting of clubs called within 14 days of receiving formal notice of a Commission decision to admit, relocate or approve a merger of clubs.
• A two thirds majority is required to overturn any such decision by the commission. Three clubs may requisition a meeting of clubs to reverse a decision by the Commission to admit or relocate or approve a merge of clubs. Clubs cannot be merged unless the clubs who are party to the merger first agree.
• Clubs also have a reserve power on the possible expulsion of a club from the competition. Any decision by the Commission to expel a club must be ratified at a general meeting of clubs by a simple majority.

Isn't this from the Crawford Report of 1993?

In practice the clubs ratify the admission, merger, relocation and expulsion of member clubs decided by the Commission.

 

[Walshawk]

Isn't this from the Crawford Report of 1993?

It was, then was instituted. Where did 75% approval come from?

 

[Roylion]

It was, then was instituted. Where did 75% approval come from?

Some time after 1996 when it definitely was two-thirds. I remember reading it had been raised to 75%. It may have been reduced to two thirds again when the 17th and 18th clubs were admitted. Two thirds of 18 is a nice round number.

 

[Walshawk]

Some time after 1996 when it definitely was two-thirds. I remember reading it had been raised to 75%. It may have been reduced to two thirds again when the 17th and 18th clubs were admitted. Two thirds of 18 is a nice round number.

Pretty sure that since 1993, the constitution has stipulat3d that the Commisson can make decisions regarding mergers, new clubs, etc, and that a two thirds majority is needed to overturn. So if seven clubs need do not vote against an AFL decision, sthe decision stands. That is why Tas was always going to get up once Gil made the decision. He only needead to get seven clubs inside if push came to shove.

After 1996, a number of clubs changed their constitutions to make a 75% YES required for a merger or relocation, rather than the 50% that could have seen Melbourne merge. Perhaps you are thinking of that.

Regardless, a merger is obviously unlikely to happen, but it was interesting the Gil mentioned the league contracting and 18 clubs after Tassie as possibilities. Perhaps they will simply fold GWS. That gives Tas a ready made team.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I don't think it was ever a 3/4 majority. Reckon it was the media stuffing up on 2/3rds and it being repeated over and over.

Just like the $10k to go to the appeals board hasn't been $10k since covid - it was halved to $5k but media keep saying its $10k and everyone seems to repeat it.

 

[sherb]

Local knowledge is a must.

Despite what the trolls on here say, there are plenty of people knee deep in footy in Western Sydney that should of been used as well as businessmen and women.
Instead we got people either from Melbourne or Eastern Suburbs of Sydney. Which is how we ended up in deals with Manly and, in my opinion the big one, Canberra.
We were also gullible to believe the Mayor of Blacktown and NSW Cricket with their overtures regarding Blacktown.

Our short comings are not so much 1 big cut, though Canberra is a decent one, but a 100 little cuts.

I don’t think that will be an issue with Tassie at all. It will be built through Tassie, like the Jack Jumpers were.

As for start up concessions I have been amused to see a few in the media down in Vic offer up opinions and most are much more than what the Suns and even the Giants got. Amusing considering the clubs got bashed from pillar to post from media and fans.

Do I know a way? No. But I’m not paid to. Just hope the club is a success.
All for more clubs away from the fishbowl.

All this my opinion of course, one not shared by a lot of my fellow Giants.

I tried to point out here the angst this caused at the time but got howled down by Giants supporters.

It created a LOT of damage amongst the senior football communities in Western Sydney, which anyone at the Giants with two functioning brain cells could have seen coming if they had the slightest understanding of the game out here.

For me it's meant that ten years down the track I still haven't been to a Giants game as I simply don't care about watching them live. I'd rather make the extra miles into the SCG to watch the Swans. I've retained my Giants membership though to support the game in general.