Do we need another AFL Club or are there too many as it is?

[Bokonon_]

Gold Coast Kangaroos = no GWS today

at the time, 2007-08, Gold Coast was treated with optimism as a credible place to expand to... being able to learn from the mistakes of the Carrara/Skase Bad News Bears, an expat Vic/transplant population that could lend their support to the local side if nothing more than to be able to watch live AFL without having to drive up the highway, and the Lions' three-peat of a few years earlier still carried a bit of mileage for the AFL in SEQ

West Sydney was considered the true hard sell... League heartland with a massive migrant population in support of soccer in the region which was riding the wave of the succesful start to the A-league and 06 Socceroos glories... it was a much riskier proposition to start an AFL wedge there

if the AFL could get the Gold Coast while staying at 16 clubs, West Sydney would have been put in the "too hard" basket.... and judging by the way the Suns have been going off-field in this universe we live in, i doubt the AFL in the other universe would be lifting a finger now to be exploring West Sydney when their Gold Coast baby was still at risk

Lot of supposition and guesswork. We were perceived as the greatest risk and the greatest potential reward. I dont like it when people link our creation to another clubs fortunes. I like the fact GC are in and there's another expansion club. But as for Tassie and any other expansion the only link is it's easier to bring two clubs into the comp for a draw perspective. Even then we entered in different years though.

 

[Power Raid]

An AFL Commission looking at whats best for footy would act, but .... its more than more teams.

Would you play the new side on alternate weeks and have WCE and the dockers play on the same weekend here in Perth to give the new side a clear run?

 

[FootyJunkie]

Would you play the new side on alternate weeks and have WCE and the dockers play on the same weekend here in Perth to give the new side a clear run?

good strategy.... with only 1 game in Perth on the weekend, it would encourage new/fringe/casual Eagles/Docker supporters to go check out the new side and perhaps make a switch?

 

[Dr Whoooooooo]

An AFL Commission looking at whats best for footy would act, but .... its more than more teams.

IMHO you have nailed it ... the AFL will always do what it thinks is best for the game.

Clubs will always do what is best for their own interests .... massive difference.

"Some (Most)" Supporters will only see it from their own clubs point of view - supporter bias.

 

[Roylion]

An AFL Commission looking at whats best for footy would act, but....

And by what mechanism would they act? Pick a Victorian club at random and just arbitrarily withdraw a licence to compete in the competition? What do you think the ramifications of that would be?

 

[Dr Whoooooooo]

And by what mechanism would they act? Pick a Victorian club at random and just arbitrarily withdraw a licence to compete in the competition? What do you think the ramifications of that would be?

The AFL will never "arbitrarily withdraw a licence to compete" ...

1st you become their landlord,
2nd you control their primary expenditures ... then ...

You impress upon then financially responsibility and the AFL is a business, not a charity.
You offer no financial guarantees ... then you let time do the rest.

 

[Kwality]

And by what mechanism would they act? Pick a Victorian club at random and just arbitrarily withdraw a licence to compete in the competition? What do you think the ramifications of that would be?

Remove the AFL guarantee, it'd be all over .... ramnifications: plenty of sooking, but that's what it would be, sooking from the self entitled. WA & SA fans copped it sweet, it wasn't painless, but one comp where all the best players play was a step forward from State based comps - the number of teams in Melbourne is a problem that can be addressed.

A club at random, NO, a bloke like Richard Goyder plans ahead, thinks outside the square .... you'd have a blueprint for the next 10-20 years & it'd address problems like the FIXture, supply & demand, junior development (see Nick Reiwoldt using decay to describe the game in Tas) ...

I accept there are many who just want more teams, want more & more 2nd tier talent playing AFL footy ..

Just as the media is changing so must the AFL, both the comp & the admin.

 

[Kwality]

Would you play the new side on alternate weeks and have WCE and the dockers play on the same weekend here in Perth to give the new side a clear run?

I wouldn't add an extra team to the comp ....

 

[PerthBoy86]

I'd like to see a Tasmanian club myself.

 

[PerthBoy86]

There's probably more South Africans in WA then there is over there

Most are rugby fans though, unfortunately...but given WA is Rules territory, we can probably get more into it. Jason Johanassen is from South Africa.

 

[99cents]

Two more-

Shanghai Superkings

Tasmania Panda

 

[Roylion]

Remove the AFL guarantee,

The "AFL guarantee"? The AFl gives out dividends and special assistance to clubs to address inequalities in fixtures and venue costs. Is this what you are referring to?

it'd be all over .... ramnifications: plenty of sooking,

And lawsuits I'd say. For example, Footscray took out a successful Supreme Court injunction in 1989 claiming that the then VFL had exceeded its powers to force a merger.

iWA & SA fans copped it sweet, it wasn't painless,

For the most part they kept their existing clubs and their existing competitions.

but one comp where all the best players play was a step forward from State based comps - the number of teams in Melbourne is a problem that can be addressed.

Is it a problem?

A club at random, NO, a bloke like Richard Goyder plans ahead, thinks outside the square .... you'd have a blueprint for the next 10-20 years & it'd address problems like the FIXture, supply & demand, junior development (see Nick Reiwoldt using decay to describe the game in Tas) ...

Which doesn't ncessarily mean the removal of a Victorian based club. In 2016 the ABS announced that Melbourne is Australia’s fastest growing capital city and grew by more than 107,000 people from July 2015 to July 2016 (an increase of 2.4 percent), ahead of Brisbane (1.8 per cent) and Sydney (1.7 per cent).

 

[Kwality]

The "AFL guarantee"? The AFl gives out dividends and special assistance to clubs to address inequalities in fixtures and venue costs. Is this what you are referring to?



And lawsuits I'd say. For example, Footscray took out a successful Supreme Court injunction in 1989 claiming that the then VFL had exceeded its powers to force a merger.



For the most part they kept their existing clubs and their existing competitions.



Is it a problem?



Which doesn't ncessarily mean the removal of a Victorian based club. In 2016 the ABS announced that Melbourne is Australia’s fastest growing capital city and grew by more than 107,000 people from July 2015 to July 2016 (an increase of 2.4 percent), ahead of Brisbane (1.8 per cent) and Sydney (1.7 per cent).

If you believed 100% of the footy landscape didn't change in SA & WA you are in cloud cuckoo land.

The AFL guarantee the bank debt of certain clubs allowing them to continue to trade without the Auditors reporting to ASIC & the directors looking down the barrel at personal liability. Check it out in the small print in the Annual Report. Not surprised you are totally unaware of it, No guarantee, close the doors, tiddly squatt to do with AFL distributions.

 

[Roylion]

If you believed 100% of the footy landscape didn't change in SA & WA you are in cloud cuckoo land.

What changed? Some of the best WAFL players went to AFL clubs, including West Coast and Fremantle. Is that mucb different to the best WAFL players heading to the VFL in the 1980's?

The AFL guarantee the bank debt of certain clubs allowing them to continue to trade without the Auditors reporting to ASIC & the directors looking down the barrel at personal liability.

The AFL themselves lend money to the clubs. For example Brisbane owes $6 million to the AFL which they are not expecting to be called in anytime soon.

Debts of Victorian clubs (after the 2015 season)
Carlton $6.3 million
Essendon $5.0 million (Now over $9.0 million)
Geelong $4.8 million (down to $3.7 million and reported to be debt free by 2018)
Hawthorn $8.3 million (net profit of $2.57 million in 2016)
Melbourne $4.99 million ($4.43 million at end of 2016)
North Melbourne $1.65 million
St Kilda $4.6 million (net profit of $1,107,311 in 2016)
Western Bulldogs $5.6 million (but down to $1.9 million at end of 2016)

Source: The Age - 8th Feb 2016

Check it out in the small print in the Annual Report. Not surprised you are totally unaware of it, No guarantee, close the doors, tiddly squatt to do with AFL distributions.

Why would the AFL want to remove the so-called 'guarantee'? The AFL will pay off debts to external creditors as they become due and take on the debt themselves. That's been going on since the late 1990's.

 

[Kwality]

The AFL guarantee is relevant to how the AFL would get its own way IF it chose to relocate a licence - it could have done it to North but squibbed it.

I've extracted a couple of extracts that might allow you to stop with the 'so called' nonsense - these notes are legal requirements as unpleasant as it may be to your views ....

This 'so called' (sic) guarantee is the only thing that stands between many clubs & insolvency. Yep, its boring reading but it is the real world that monitors matters financial, new to some that it clearly is, eh Roy?

Take Norths last numbers:
http://www.footyindustry.com/?page_id=2946
NOTE 19 – ECONOMIC DEPENDENCY A significant portion of the income of the Company is derived from the holding of a licence issued by the Australian Football League. The Company is dependent upon the continued financial support from the AFL which includes annual funding payments, the continued guarantee of the Company’s borrowing facilities totalling $3m (currently drawn to $1.75m) and the availability of credit. As part of this commitment, the AFL has agreed to continue to provide additional payments to the Company including annual funding in 2017 of $4.561 million.


See the AFL numbers:
http://www.footyindustry.com/?page_id=2946
4. Contingent Liabilities
i. The Company has entered into an agreement with the AFL Players’ Association Inc. for a period of five years commencing on 1 November 2011 whereby the Company has an obligation to assume liability for all amounts due to players of a Club where the Club has lost its licence to compete in the AFL Competition and is suspended from or loses its right to representation in the League. The amounts payable in these circumstances will be offset by any amounts payable to the players in respect of future employment as a player.
ii. The Company has entered into an agreement with Westpac whereby the Company guarantees the obligations of the Carlton Football Club Limited to Westpac to a maximum of $5.0 million. This guarantee expires on 31 January 2018.
iii. The Company has entered into an agreement with Westpac whereby the Company guarantees the obligations of the Melbourne Football Club Limited to Westpac to a maximum of $5.4 million. This guarantee expires on 31 January 2018.
iv. The Company has entered into an agreement with Westpac whereby the Company guarantees the obligations of the North Melbourne Football Club Limited to Westpac to a maximum of $3.0 million. This guarantee expires on 31 January 2018.
v. The Company has entered into an agreement with Westpac whereby the Company guarantees the obligations of the St Kilda Football Club Limited to Westpac to a maximum of $6.75 million. This guarantee expires on 31 January 2018.
vi. The Company has entered into an agreement with Westpac whereby the Company guarantees the obligations of the Footscray Football Club Limited to Westpac to a maximum of $5.35 million. This guarantee expires on 31 January 2018.
vii. The Company has entered into an agreement with Westpac whereby the Company guarantees the obligations of the Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Football Club Limited to Westpac to a maximum of $8.0 million. This guarantee expires on 31 January 2018.
viii. The Company has entered into an agreement with Westpac whereby the Company guarantees the obligations of the Essendon Football Club Limited to Westpac to a maximum of $10.0 million. This guarantee expires on 31 January 2018.
ix. The Company has entered into an agreement with Bank SA whereby the Company guarantees the obligations of the Port Adelaide Football Club Limited to Bank SA to a maximum of $5.0 million. This guarantee expires on 31 May 2019.
x. The Company has entered into an agreement with National Australia Bank whereby the Company guarantees the obligations of GCFC Limited to National Australia Bank to a maximum of $1.41 million (Transactional Facilities). This guarantee expires on 30 November 2017.
xi. The Company has entered into an agreement with National Australia Bank whereby the Company guarantees the obligations of GCFC Limited to National Australia Bank to a maximum of $1.59 million (Corporate Markets Loan). This guarantee expires on 30 November 2017.
xii. The Company has entered into an agreement with National Australia Bank whereby the Company guarantees the obligations of the Western Sydney Football Club Limited to National Australia Bank to a maximum of $0.66 million. This guarantee expires on 30 November 2017.


The clubs that don't require an AFL guarantee are independent of direct AFL control.

 

[Roylion]

The AFL guarantee is relevant to how the AFL would get its own way IF it chose to relocate a licence - it could have done it to North but squibbed it.

It can't 'relocate a licence' (and what I mean by that is that a particular club cannot be relocated forcibly to another state). The AFL can withdraw a licence and grant another licence to another entity. Which is what I've always said.

I've extracted a couple of extracts that might allow you to stop with the 'so called' nonsense - these notes are legal requirements as unpleasant as it may be to your views ....

This 'so called' (sic) guarantee is the only thing that stands between many clubs & insolvency. Yep, its boring reading but it is the real world that monitors matters financial, new to some that it clearly is, eh Roy?

I'm very aware of finances in relation to AFL clubs. I've been a shareholder of Fitzroy Football Club for thirty years.

An insolvent company is one that is unable to pay its debts when they fall due for payment.

Take Norths last numbers:
http://www.footyindustry.com/?page_id=2946
NOTE 19 – ECONOMIC DEPENDENCY A significant portion of the income of the Company is derived from the holding of a licence issued by the Australian Football League. The Company is dependent upon the continued financial support from the AFL which includes annual funding payments, the continued guarantee of the Company’s borrowing facilities totalling $3m (currently drawn to $1.75m) and the availability of credit. As part of this commitment, the AFL has agreed to continue to provide additional payments to the Company including annual funding in 2017 of $4.561 million.

Yes? And? Clubs are supported financially by the AFL through a number of means. I've never disputed that.

See the AFL numbers:
http://www.footyindustry.com/?page_id=2946
4. Contingent Liabilities
i. The Company has entered into an agreement with the AFL Players’ Association Inc. for a period of five years commencing on 1 November 2011 whereby the Company has an obligation to assume liability for all amounts due to players of a Club where the Club has lost its licence to compete in the AFL Competition and is suspended from or loses its right to representation in the League. The amounts payable in these circumstances will be offset by any amounts payable to the players in respect of future employment as a player.

Yes? This is nothing new. A Club leaves the AFL and the AFL assumes lability for the payement of players. This happened with Fitzroy in 1996.

ii. The Company has entered into an agreement with Westpac whereby the Company guarantees the obligations of the Carlton Football Club Limited to Westpac to a maximum of $5.0 million. This guarantee expires on 31 January 2018.
iii. The Company has entered into an agreement with Westpac whereby the Company guarantees the obligations of the Melbourne Football Club Limited to Westpac to a maximum of $5.4 million. This guarantee expires on 31 January 2018.
iv. The Company has entered into an agreement with Westpac whereby the Company guarantees the obligations of the North Melbourne Football Club Limited to Westpac to a maximum of $3.0 million. This guarantee expires on 31 January 2018.
v. The Company has entered into an agreement with Westpac whereby the Company guarantees the obligations of the St Kilda Football Club Limited to Westpac to a maximum of $6.75 million. This guarantee expires on 31 January 2018.
vi. The Company has entered into an agreement with Westpac whereby the Company guarantees the obligations of the Footscray Football Club Limited to Westpac to a maximum of $5.35 million. This guarantee expires on 31 January 2018.
vii. The Company has entered into an agreement with Westpac whereby the Company guarantees the obligations of the Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Football Club Limited to Westpac to a maximum of $8.0 million. This guarantee expires on 31 January 2018.
viii. The Company has entered into an agreement with Westpac whereby the Company guarantees the obligations of the Essendon Football Club Limited to Westpac to a maximum of $10.0 million. This guarantee expires on 31 January 2018.
ix. The Company has entered into an agreement with Bank SA whereby the Company guarantees the obligations of the Port Adelaide Football Club Limited to Bank SA to a maximum of $5.0 million. This guarantee expires on 31 May 2019.
x. The Company has entered into an agreement with National Australia Bank whereby the Company guarantees the obligations of GCFC Limited to National Australia Bank to a maximum of $1.41 million (Transactional Facilities). This guarantee expires on 30 November 2017.
xi. The Company has entered into an agreement with National Australia Bank whereby the Company guarantees the obligations of GCFC Limited to National Australia Bank to a maximum of $1.59 million (Corporate Markets Loan). This guarantee expires on 30 November 2017.
xii. The Company has entered into an agreement with National Australia Bank whereby the Company guarantees the obligations of the Western Sydney Football Club Limited to National Australia Bank to a maximum of $0.66 million. This guarantee expires on 30 November 2017.

The clubs that don't require an AFL guarantee are independent of direct AFL control.

The clubs are still liable for the debt themselves and will make repayments themselves as they fall due. THE AFL don't pay debt, unless a club cannot make the payment themselves. That's the nature of a "guarantee". Withdrawing a guarantee doesn't necessarily mean the club will leave the AFL either. Banks will more readily lend AFL clubs money for a variety of reasons (such as stadium improvement for example) if they are guaranteed to be re-paid by some means. Enter the AFL as that guarantor. That's been happening for years incidentally.

My point continues to be is that the AFL cannot force a Club (unless they directly own said Club) to relocate or merge, irrespective of whether they guarantee a club's loans or not.

 

[Our Game]

The answer is NO! we dont need any new clubs worst case just relocate some of the lesser Victorian Clubs.

 

[Kwality]

It can't 'relocate a licence' (and what I mean by that is that a particular club cannot be relocated forcibly to another state). The AFL can withdraw a licence and grant another licence to another entity. Which is what I've always said.



I'm very aware of finances in relation to AFL clubs. I've been a shareholder of Fitzroy Football Club for thirty years.

An insolvent company is one that is unable to pay its debts when they fall due for payment.



Yes? And? Clubs are supported financially by the AFL through a number of means. I've never disputed that.



Yes? This is nothing new. A Club leaves the AFL and the AFL assumes lability for the payement of players. This happened with Fitzroy in 1996.



The clubs are still liable for the debt themselves and will make repayments themselves as they fall due. THE AFL don't pay debt, unless a club cannot make the payment themselves. That's the nature of a "guarantee". Withdrawing a guarantee doesn't necessarily mean the club will leave the AFL either. Banks will more readily lend AFL clubs money for a variety of reasons (such as stadium improvement for example) if they are guaranteed to be re-paid by some means. Enter the AFL as that guarantor. That's been happening for years incidentally.

My point continues to be is that the AFL cannot force a Club (unless they directly own said Club) to relocate or merge, irrespective of whether they guarantee a club's loans or not.

It can't 'relocate a licence' (and what I mean by that is that a particular club cannot be relocated forcibly to another state). The AFL can withdraw a licence and grant another licence to another entity. Which is what I've always said.



I'm very aware of finances in relation to AFL clubs. I've been a shareholder of Fitzroy Football Club for thirty years.

An insolvent company is one that is unable to pay its debts when they fall due for payment.



Yes? And? Clubs are supported financially by the AFL through a number of means. I've never disputed that.



Yes? This is nothing new. A Club leaves the AFL and the AFL assumes lability for the payement of players. This happened with Fitzroy in 1996.



The clubs are still liable for the debt themselves and will make repayments themselves as they fall due. THE AFL don't pay debt, unless a club cannot make the payment themselves. That's the nature of a "guarantee". Withdrawing a guarantee doesn't necessarily mean the club will leave the AFL either. Banks will more readily lend AFL clubs money for a variety of reasons (such as stadium improvement for example) if they are guaranteed to be re-paid by some means. Enter the AFL as that guarantor. That's been happening for years incidentally.

My point continues to be is that the AFL cannot force a Club (unless they directly own said Club) to relocate or merge, irrespective of whether they guarantee a club's loans or not.

It can't 'relocate a licence' (and what I mean by that is that a particular club cannot be relocated forcibly to another state). The AFL can withdraw a licence and grant another licence to another entity. Which is what I've always said.



I'm very aware of finances in relation to AFL clubs. I've been a shareholder of Fitzroy Football Club for thirty years.

An insolvent company is one that is unable to pay its debts when they fall due for payment.



Yes? And? Clubs are supported financially by the AFL through a number of means. I've never disputed that.



Yes? This is nothing new. A Club leaves the AFL and the AFL assumes lability for the payement of players. This happened with Fitzroy in 1996.



The clubs are still liable for the debt themselves and will make repayments themselves as they fall due. THE AFL don't pay debt, unless a club cannot make the payment themselves. That's the nature of a "guarantee". Withdrawing a guarantee doesn't necessarily mean the club will leave the AFL either. Banks will more readily lend AFL clubs money for a variety of reasons (such as stadium improvement for example) if they are guaranteed to be re-paid by some means. Enter the AFL as that guarantor. That's been happening for years incidentally.

My point continues to be is that the AFL cannot force a Club (unless they directly own said Club) to relocate or merge, irrespective of whether they guarantee a club's loans or not.

Yet you referred to 'so called' guarantees - why would you do that in the face of the understanding you claim to have. You knew all along , ho hum, you knew about the nature of the guarantee yet chose to call them 'so called'

What would happen if the AFL did not renew the guarantee Roy? Sayonara Motors !!

The AFL would not force anything? The likes of you would not sook about the action of the AFL, blame the club(s) concerned ? You would be comfortable because the club gave up its licence, the AFL did not take it, OK.

 

[Roylion]

Yet you referred to 'so called' guarantees - why would you do that in the face of the understanding you claim to have. You knew all along , ho hum, you knew about the nature of the guarantee yet chose to call them 'so called'

The AFL don't pay a club's debt, unless a club cannot make the payment themselves. That's the nature of a "guarantee". In the same way I can be a guarantor for my children's loans. They pay the loan back, not me. I just guarantee the loan, so if they, for whatever reason cannot pay back the loan then I do so.

The AFL withdrawing / not renewing a guarantee doesn't necessarily mean the club will leave the AFL either. Banks will more readily lend AFL clubs money for a variety of reasons (such as stadium improvement for example) if they are guaranteed to be re-paid by some means. Enter the AFL as that guarantor, especially when the club doesn't have a significant asset, such as a ground, as security for a loan.

What would happen if the AFL did not renew the guarantee Roy? Sayonara Motors !!

The Club would be still be liable for the debt and still be required to pay back a particular loan by whatever payment schedule has been agreed upon.

The AFL would not force anything?

The AFL commission has the right to withdraw a club's licence to compete in the AFL competition subject to a 75% affirmative vote by the AFL's clubs.

The likes of you would not sook about the action of the AFL, blame the club(s) concerned ? You would be comfortable because the club gave up its licence, the AFL did not take it, OK.

Fitzroy surrendered its licence to the AFL as Per Clause 7.1a of the 1996 Deed of Arrangement signed by the Nauru appointed administrator of Fitzroy, after a deal was done between the administrator and the AFL.

"7.1a) after the end of the 1996 Season and on or before the Merger Date, Fitzroy will cease its Fitzroy Operations, terminate the membership of its Appointee of AFL (appointed pursuant to AFL's constituent documents) and surrender its AFL Licence and release AFL from all claims connected with its AFL Licence and such termination and surrender."

The AFL issued a new licence to the Port Adelaide Football Club. Fitzroy Football Club left the AFL.

My point continues to be is that the AFL cannot force a Club (unless the AFL directly owns said Club) to relocate or merge, irrespective of whether they "guarantee" a club's loans or not.

The AFL couldn't force Fitzroy to merge. All they could do was prevail upon the administrator to surrender the licence. The administrator discharged the debts of the club (by securing funds from the AFL in return for the surrender of the licence, which in turn allowed the Brisbane Bears to rebrand), After that process was complete, the administrator returned the control of the Fitzroy Football Club to the elected directors in 1998. By 2008 the directors had rebuilt the finances of the Fitzroy Football Club to a point where it could join the VAFA. The Club continues to grow once again.

In 1989 when the VFL attempted to remove the Footscray Football Club's licence to compete in the VFL competition, they were slapped with a Supreme Court injunction. The AFL knew that in 2007 that the decision to relocate to the Gold Coast was ultimately North Melbourne's. All the AFL could do was make it as attractive a deal as possible in order for them to agree.

Expelling / relocating or merging a club from the AFL is much more difficult than just merely removing the "guarantee'. One does not necesarily follow from the other.

 

[Kwality]

& my point is the AFL can get its own way regardless, & withdrawing the guarantee would have consequences at many of the clubs that need this guarantee - therein lies our difference, i.e need, its not some procedural extravagance to guarantee a club debt, see the pride at Richmond when it was no longer required.

Yes, its a different set of circumstances to Fitzroy, most understand that. IF it was 2007 revisited, the AFL would succeed IMHO, if it were to play hard ball, Demetriou & Fitzpatrick were not.

 

[Roylion]

& my point is the AFL can get its own way regardless, & withdrawing the guarantee would have consequences at many of the clubs that need this guarantee - therein lies our difference, i.e need, its not some procedural extravagance to guarantee a club debt, see the pride at Richmond when it was no longer required.

Withdrawing funding to certain clubs only, opens the AFL to legal challenge. AFL Commission members are voted on and off the commission by clubs as well. The Commission won't force a bloc of clubs to act against them for a whole host of reasons, including the above.

Yes, its a different set of circumstances to Fitzroy, most understand that. IF it was 2007 revisited, the AFL would succeed IMHO, if it were to play hard ball, Demetriou & Fitzpatrick were not.

That'd be a good look for the AFL. Withdrawing funding from North Melbourne alone to get them to go to the Gold Coast, while continuing to fund other clubs would be a PR disaster in terms of the turmoil it would generate both in and out of court. North supporters would have been even more strident in their opposition beyond what they did in 2007. The "We are North Melbourne" public campaign was fairly tame and was primarily devoted to putting pressure on North Melbourne's directors to reject relocation. However had the North Melbourne board refused relocation and the AFL had withdrawn funding to North alone because of the rejection, then those tactics would have changed, far beyond organising a "Roosistance' rock concert. See the Fitzroy Bulldogs forced merger of 1989 and the Melbourne Hawks merger proposal of 1996 for some of the public and legal ramifications. The AFL certainly doesn't want to see those sorts of scenes again.

 

[Kwality]

Withdrawing funding to certain clubs only, opens the AFL to legal challenge. ...

That'd be a good look for the AFL. Withdrawing funding from North Melbourne alone ....

No funds being withdrawn, full stop.

 

[maroon and blue]

The elephant in the room, apart from two teams and the cats all Victorian teams are north of the Yarra. The northern suburbs are one of the fastest population growth areas in Australia, with a strong football culture.

 

[madmug]

The elephant in the room, apart from two teams and the cats all Victorian teams are north of the Yarra. The northern suburbs are one of the fastest population growth areas in Australia, with a strong football culture.

I thought it was Melbourne's east & south east, Out Cranborne way that was the biggest growth area?

Expanding suburbs is fraught with costs for Gument.It get more expensive per person to provision public services, including transport like freeways , medical services, & rail services the more the urban spread continues. Inner city growth is best for the city's health. & crowds at the footy stadiums.

 

[Tigersman]

There's too many teams as it is. Imagine the quality of the sides if there was only 12 teams for example. It'll never happen I know.

Way to many average footballers are on afl lists