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

[Power Raid]

Whatever happens, we need a decade of consolidation as 18 sides has stretched resources and the talent pool. Tassie, Canberra, NZ and 2*NSW are all opportunities in time. With WA projected to grow to 3.5m, expansion here makes sense but all in good time.

 

[jatz14]

I'm not sure what you mean. I don't have every answer, there are people who are experts on money and so forth who would work out how it would work. I have never ever made my argument about losing money , the AFL on the other hand make their whole existence based on making money.

So you tell me if you know why my club would lose money and why that question is even asked.
If there were new clubs added would the AFL feed them players and bulk money??????

My opinion on the expansion has been around since GC17 took the field, and more since the Giants , have .

My point is that we have too many teams , I think its changed the game, I think that the rules have been fiddled without a doubt, I reckon the reason for that was to take pressure off players who may not make it in the heavy dangerous slog of AFL footy, or whose skills are a little less because of the speed and the game of football , the football nous players need, to read this game like a footballer, not just a runner and deliver the footy.
We have frees where the forwards are looked after by arm touches, dubious in the backs, some players favoured others ignored, some hand balling is throwing, and its allowed .

Read me wrong and you make a mistake, the game at AFL level, is high quality, adding teams to an already hard pushed player pool, can not logically be good, when its about raking in millions from TV rights, adding teams for more games on TV.
I reckon they knew the level would drop, it just does in any form of over load, whether your loading a truck too heavy or overloading a competition, hard pressed for numbers to keep the standard up.
.
And in AFL top level if you are off by one or two players or a tiny percentage in skill on a given day, you can be massacred.
I suggest that some clubs have their handful of A graders , but more than not ,the majority of of the lower under 10 clubs maybe even more have their 3 maybe A graders and the rest C' just sneaking in to the team, because the middle road players and the A grade players have to be spread around more teams , so logic tells you, you will get less quality in the pool, to use fairly.
What ever you reckon, 23 million is not like having 320 million people, like the US .

Playing AFL at the top is more difficult than anything , ask the boys that just make it to a few games in the reserve competitions , who can't make the grade in the firsts.
Even the lower grade amateurs , thousands of players who have a snow flakes chance in hell , of ever playing for money for anybody.
Our game is too hard, played on a giant field that'd kill other foot on field sports and players.
Running like machines, all day , on top of that you have a game where the ball never ever does what you think, then you follow tactics of movement of the coach, around the ground against other players the same level some of who manage a few games a year as B graders but are not in the elite top handful group of players who are always first picks. 'The players are up against hard hard people all the time, that kind of pressure only certain numbers can handle, if you have too big a number of teams to fill, the game deteriorates.
Look I could go on forever about this , all I 've seen is the game as brilliant as it is, deteriorate recently to seeing things you didn't see as often before, not that many years ago either.
A drop in skill levels, handball, kicking , and the rules when a player has to defend but if its not done properly you cost your team, from some rules that are not needed. We all know the ones.
I think logic tells you that its expansion causing this in a low population, for a unique game that no other people can play, you almost need to be brought up with it. Occasionally you get a freak like the giant Collingwood American ruckman /forward who has adapted somewhat to the game.
Or Irish players who know the basics through a very fast Gaelic football and can adapt. Takes a lot but, with that bloody oval ball.
But the bottom line is simple , the game has changed and I don't think it should go any further and more teams in our competition is impossible.
And well run clubs don't lose money by the million either, but some organisation can kill a competition.

Part of the rationale for expanding was product for Fox and FTA, and increased exposure to non traditional markets. You don't get to negotiate contracts with as many zeros as the AFL did, then change the product you offer part way through, and get to keep all the money. The players negotiation is done. The AFL costs are relatively fixed, so the cuts come from?

Sent from my Lenovo TB3-710F using Tapatalk

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Whatever happens, we need a decade of consolidation as 18 sides has stretched resources and the talent pool. Tassie, Canberra, NZ and 2*NSW are all opportunities in time. With WA projected to grow to 3.5m, expansion here makes sense but all in good time.

Aaah, the talent pool argument.

How exactly is the talent pool any worse than it was in 1993, when we had 15 teams vs 18 currently (so 83% of the teams), when the Australian population was 72% of it now, we hardly had a single player out of NSW and Queensland, and we didn't have the TAC Cup system contributing half the league's draftees which is an extremely effective system of identifying, developing and streamlining talent through the AFL, meaning that less talented players slip through the cracks than they used to?

It's quite literally the most ridiculous consistently pushed forward argument on BigFooty, and that's saying something.

 

[SellarStardom]

14 would be ideal with a top 6. 4 clubs would need to drop out, do you relinquish their licence snd send them back to VFL or NEAFL or do you put them back to a national second division

 

[jatz14]

14 would be ideal with a top 6. 4 clubs would need to drop out, do you relinquish their licence snd send them back to VFL or NEAFL or do you put them back to a national second division

Take the s**t fight that Rugby just went through, multiply by about 100, factor in the broadcasters throwing a wobbly. The cost of the move would drag on footy for generations. The benefit is a proposed 10 - 20% increase in perceived quality? Its like fixing a wart by cutting off a limb with a rusty hacksaw.

 

[StevenwellerHFC]

Need less teams.

 

[Power Raid]

Aaah, the talent pool argument.

How exactly is the talent pool any worse than it was in 1993, when we had 15 teams vs 18 currently (so 83% of the teams), when the Australian population was 72% of it now, we hardly had a single player out of NSW and Queensland, and we didn't have the TAC Cup system contributing half the league's draftees which is an extremely effective system of identifying, developing and streamlining talent through the AFL, meaning that less talented players slip through the cracks than they used to?

It's quite literally the most ridiculous consistently pushed forward argument on BigFooty, and that's saying something.

I think you only need to look at the WAFL and SANFL to see how the talent pool has been effected.

By reducing the standard here, you actually damage the feeder development leagues.

I'm pro expansion btw but for this to succeed the AFL does need to consolidate otherwise it will suffer the fate of the super league

 

[SellarStardom]

Take the s**t fight that Rugby just went through, multiply by about 100, factor in the broadcasters throwing a wobbly. The cost of the move would drag on footy for generations. The benefit is a proposed 10 - 20% increase in perceived quality? Its like fixing a wart by cutting off a limb with a rusty hacksaw.

The Rugby s**t fight emerged due to the recognition they had too many clubs in 1 region. A forced culling occurred and this could happen again in the AFL, the calls for Victorian clubs to move are still around. A better model would be relegation that would cause upheaval but create significant benefits.

Improved top tier player quality would occur, free agency would become the norm with players moving with bigger paydays, networks would love the playoffs for promotion to the AFL and second division and club memberships would actually increase. Sturt won the SANFL GF and under a promotion model would go up to the second division, the membership boost would be enormous

 

[Gigantor]

The Rugby s**t fight emerged due to the recognition they had too many clubs in 1 region. A forced culling occurred and this could happen again in the AFL, the calls for Victorian clubs to move are still around. A better model would be relegation that would cause upheaval but create significant benefits.

Improved top tier player quality would occur, free agency would become the norm with players moving with bigger paydays, networks would love the playoffs for promotion to the AFL and second division and club memberships would actually increase. Sturt won the SANFL GF and under a promotion model would go up to the second division, the membership boost would be enormous

No cull is on the cards amongst the Victorian clubs. The closest thing we will get is North playing more games in Tassie.

Back to the NRL cull, Souths got back into the comp about two years after being culled, and Norths is still trying to get back into the comp, and one way or another, it will probably be successful.

Don't expect a cull from the most vibrant, prosperous and popular sporting comp in the land - leave that to the vanquished and wanna-bes.

 

[NoobPie]

The Rugby s**t fight emerged due to the recognition they had too many clubs in 1 region. A forced culling occurred and this could happen again in the AFL, the calls for Victorian clubs to move are still around. A better model would be relegation that would cause upheaval but create significant benefits.

Improved top tier player quality would occur, free agency would become the norm with players moving with bigger paydays, networks would love the playoffs for promotion to the AFL and second division and club memberships would actually increase. Sturt won the SANFL GF and under a promotion model would go up to the second division, the membership boost would be enormous

I think when he said "rugby s**t fight" he was talking about rugby not rugby league

Promotion and relegation is a ridiculous proposition. In terms of linking the the professional to the semi-professional, it works in one code due to the particular nature of that code and has only worked where that code is the dominant football code. It has enormous costs associated with it and the benefits are pretty much all debatable

The "equalised" closed shop is a perfect fit for Australian football

 

[Gigantor]

I think when he said "rugby s**t fight" he was talking about rugby not rugby league

Promotion and relegation is a ridiculous proposition. In terms of linking the the professional to the semi-professional, it works in one code due to the particular nature of that code and has only worked where that code is the dominant football code. It has enormous costs associated with it and the benefits are pretty much all debatable

The "equalised" closed shop is a perfect fit for Australian football

True, anyone talking about P&R at the elite level of Australian Football doesn't really understand our game. Do such people understand what would happen if any AFL standard team played anyone below AFL standard? Even at AFL level, it only takes a very small differential to get a big margin. As you say, it's a different story in soccer where clubs below the elite level can be competitive against the best clubs which gives life to the FA Cup and FFA Cup, something that can't be replicated in Australian Football.

 

[NoobPie]

True, anyone talking about P&R at the elite level of Australian Football doesn't really understand our game. Do such people understand what would happen if any AFL standard team played anyone below AFL standard? Even at AFL level, it only takes a very small differential to get a big margin. As you say, it's a different story in soccer where clubs below the elite level can be competitive against the best clubs which gives life to the FA Cup and FFA Cup, something that can't be replicated in Australian Football.

Yep, also in soccer, the problem of the "teams with nothing to play for" is more significant than in other games, including football

The game relies more on "competitive tension" than other codes so the absence of anything to play for is more detracting than in other codes.

 

[jatz14]

I think when he said "rugby s**t fight" he was talking about rugby not rugby league

Promotion and relegation is a ridiculous proposition. In terms of linking the the professional to the semi-professional, it works in one code due to the particular nature of that code and has only worked where that code is the dominant football code. It has enormous costs associated with it and the benefits are pretty much all debatable

The "equalised" closed shop is a perfect fit for Australian football

Correct, dismissing a team that was not heavily followed or embedded in the fabric of society, in what is possibly the least scrutinised of the football codes, became a nightmare, and thats with Australian Rugby making sure they had a mechanism to get rid of them.

People are talking 14 as ideal. That means getting rid of 4. So, GWS, GC, Saints and North for example. There is no conceivable situation where that is not a nightmare that lasts for years, and disenfranchises a huge number of supporters. This move also does not produce any elite talent, it may even cost some. The current top 10 are still the top 10, they just get spread over slightly fewer teams. It also means the draft does not go nearly as far down the list as it does now, with the chance that the occasional late pick gem, ends up never getting picked.

Perceived quality gains are just that, perceived, the cost would be very real.

 

[Kwality]

Correct, dismissing a team that was not heavily followed or embedded in the fabric of society, in what is possibly the least scrutinised of the football codes, became a nightmare, and thats with Australian Rugby making sure they had a mechanism to get rid of them.

People are talking 14 as ideal. That means getting rid of 4. So, GWS, GC, Saints and North for example. There is no conceivable situation where that is not a nightmare that lasts for years, and disenfranchises a huge number of supporters. This move also does not produce any elite talent, it may even cost some. The current top 10 are still the top 10, they just get spread over slightly fewer teams. It also means the draft does not go nearly as far down the list as it does now, with the chance that the occasional late pick gem, ends up never getting picked.

Perceived quality gains are just that, perceived, the cost would be very real.

The 2nd tier might turn up some gems, e,g Menegola

 

[SellarStardom]

I laugh when I hear people making concerns of disenfranchising supporters from clubs like GC or GWS. We nearly had a team in the GF this year who had 14k turn up for their semi final. I hear "yes but their new" but reality is a mountain of state clubs could get more to a final. The SA GF last weekend had 40k, many of whom were Sturt suppprters.

P &R would require some significant changes no doubt, but it is possible. It is far better than conferences sometimes suggested.

For playing quality, a second tier would provide an ability for great league players to play at a higher leve that is a rung below the AFL. Some of these would step up and improve further.

For international players, and this has to be part of the future, two levels would provide a better platform. Many if the Irish guys head back home with a common comment being "i didn't come half way around the world to play in a semi professional state league"

 

[djpaulydemon]

I laugh when I hear people making concerns of disenfranchising supporters from clubs like GC or GWS. We nearly had a team in the GF this year who had 14k turn up for their semi final. I hear "yes but their new" but reality is a mountain of state clubs could get more to a final. The SA GF last weekend had 40k, many of whom were Sturt suppprters.

P &R would require some significant changes no doubt, but it is possible. It is far better than conferences sometimes suggested.

For playing quality, a second tier would provide an ability for great league players to play at a higher leve that is a rung below the AFL. Some of these would step up and improve further.

For international players, and this has to be part of the future, two levels would provide a better platform. Many if the Irish guys head back home with a common comment being "i didn't come half way around the world to play in a semi professional state league"

P&R wouldn't work with a salary cap and draft.

The notion is pretty cool, but how would Sturt go reaching the salary floor of 12 million next year? Draftee salaries need to be on the same scale as every other team so they wouldnt particpate in the draft. The promoted teams would get slaughtered and never be able to build a list though the AFL draft.

This is not to mention all the complexities that relegation would cause to stadium deals/ attendences etc.

 

[jatz14]

I laugh when I hear people making concerns of disenfranchising supporters from clubs like GC or GWS. We nearly had a team in the GF this year who had 14k turn up for their semi final. I hear "yes but their new" but reality is a mountain of state clubs could get more to a final. The SA GF last weekend had 40k, many of whom were Sturt suppprters.

P &R would require some significant changes no doubt, but it is possible. It is far better than conferences sometimes suggested.

For playing quality, a second tier would provide an ability for great league players to play at a higher leve that is a rung below the AFL. Some of these would step up and improve further.

For international players, and this has to be part of the future, two levels would provide a better platform. Many if the Irish guys head back home with a common comment being "i didn't come half way around the world to play in a semi professional state league"

All those state league teams have supporters who already support AFL teams. They might bring thousands to a state league game, but they will not bring anyone new to an AFL game.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[Carlton_Blues]

All those state league teams have supporters who already support AFL teams. They might bring thousands to a state league game, but they will not bring anyone new to an AFL game.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

Are you suggesting we don’t have the population to support expansion/ growth?

 

[NoobPie]

Are you suggesting we don’t have the population to support expansion/ growth?

No I think he is suggesting that growth is unlikely to occur through promotion / relegation of state league clubs

 

[jatz14]

Are you suggesting we don’t have the population to support expansion/ growth?

Not by adding state league teams. Expanding the comp by adding teams whose support base takes from existing clubs is not expanding, it is just slicing the same pie up differently.

There is a reason that in going from the VFL to the AFL, all the new teams have been from outside Victoria.

 

[JoondalupJ]

Part of the rationale for expanding was product for Fox and FTA, and increased exposure to non traditional markets. You don't get to negotiate contracts with as many zeros as the AFL did, then change the product you offer part way through, and get to keep all the money. The players negotiation is done. The AFL costs are relatively fixed, so the cuts come from?

Sent from my Lenovo TB3-710F using Tapatalk

Well I,m not real sure what you mean when you say change the product, I reckon the product of Aussie rules has definitely changed. Non traditional markets never stay on board and expansion has already "changed the products" When GWS have several rebuild seasons (meaning cellar dwelling for a few seasons) the non traditional markets in Greater Western Sydney will wander away. Product for Fox and free to air, you bet that's all it was about, then the AFL threw millions at both new teams and one is doing OK at the moment the other is a basket case.Look maybe I,m stupid I can,t see from where the idea stablised clubs would lose money if the comp went back to 16 or even 14.
I,d imagine every ground would be filled to the brim, and TV would be happy with the ratings because you wouldn't have to worry about people walking out of televised games at home because someone is always so far ahead that the game is over.
That is real expansion, expansion of QUALITY football and elite players at full flight, every game every week.

The women's comp needs to be extremely careful too about over loading their competition with too many teams the lower number in the quality of the women's player pool I,m talking numbers here, but the number of girls with talent enough to play elite women's football is not going to be any where near the number of males looking to play footy.
And if the quality slips away that AFLW league will also slip away, that would be a tragedy, because when the women get settled in , in a few seasonsI believe the football they play at elite level will be somewhat closer to the slower more skill full game that we used to see played 5 to 20 years ago in the AFL.

Expansion in a low populated country with such a hard sport (Aussie rules) to adapt too, becomes less of a good thing.
The men's AFL has shown some weirdness in its rules and competency of different aspects of skill levels.

 

[JoondalupJ]

Are you suggesting we don’t have the population to support expansion/ growth?

OF COURSE. I AM SUGGESTING JUST THAT!

But that's just me. Not a bad argument though.

 

[Komrade_Tiger]

it will go to 20 teams and everyone will play each other once. 20 rd season with bye/s

that's the only way to equalise the fixture

 

[JoondalupJ]

Whatever happens, we need a decade of consolidation as 18 sides has stretched resources and the talent pool. Tassie, Canberra, NZ and 2*NSW are all opportunities in time. With WA projected to grow to 3.5m, expansion here makes sense but all in good time.

I,d say 18 is here to stay, that's how it's turning out, but that's it for at least a few decades .
Population growth in WA is stagnant at the moment l think.

I guess we,ll see.

 

[Power Raid]

I,d say 18 is here to stay, that's how it's turning out, but that's it for at least a few decades .
Population growth in WA is stagnant at the moment l think.

I guess we,ll see.

Even when we hit 3.5m, they'll be north and south. Imagine the commute from beyond Lancelin and beyond Mandurah!

That said I can see technology doing away the need for stadiums in time.