Well whose fault it having 'too many clubs'? So IYO, Which clubs should go? Or which should stay?
Do we need another AFL Club or are there too many as it is?
- Thread starter DangerIsLove
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Well whose fault it having 'too many clubs'? So IYO, Which clubs should go? Or which should stay?
BringBackTorps
Club Legend
- Jan 5, 2017
- 2,963
- 1,827
- AFL Club
- GWS
Incorrect on AFL Club geography; & Football culture is strongest in the south/south east Melb. (Soccer is also strong in the immigrant-heavy north).
Melbourne supporters are overwhelmingly eastern/SE suburbs based: private school educated, often professionally employed & living in expensive homes; often with very strong ties to the corporate sector -& many with strong links to the powerhouse VAFA & its clubs (Many of the latter have Melb.'s tune of "Its a Grand Old Flag"as their club song -I'm a VAFA FU, sick of hearing it sung!).
Increasing nos. of AFL officials, inc. McLachlan, are ex VAFA -& the VAFA is expanding, swallowing up geographic League clubs.
Melb. is a "smaller"club, but has huge Collins St backing. Also, for reasons of Australian nationalism & pride, it will never be cut/have a name change. (Melb. FC, est. 1858, is the oldest professional, continuous FC of any code, playing scheduled football in an organised multi-team comp., in the world).
Richmond supporters are truly everywhere, bless their long-suffering yellow & black hearts -but are predominantly in the east & SE.
Coll.FC also has many supporters in the east & SE (not so much the west).
The other two "smaller" Melb. Clubs, Footscray & Nth. Melb., are also probably safe. The two fastest growing areas in Aust. are the outer nth. & west. suburbs of Melb. -which is predicted by the ABS to have a pop. of c. 8,000,000 by 2050, IF current trends continue. Immigrants are pouring in to the nth. & west, since land is much cheaper than Syd.-& is much closer to the CBD.
GR soccer is also stronger than AF in these areas, particularly the west. Thus the AFL (despite its record of overseeing GR decline in Vic., WA, SA, & Tas. relative to soccer/basketball/computer games'growth etc) would never want Footscray or North to go -to create a bulwark for AF.
There are also the small matters of:-
.There being "blood on the streets" if Footscray or North were cut -their supporters would never agree, the AFL would not want another PR disaster.
.The Libs. would probably try to "wedge" these "safe" ALP areas, by opposing these cuts; & thus force the ALP also to oppose cuts. The AFL would be foolish to challenge a State Govt./vocal Opposition party.
(See the collapse in the ALP vote after the grand Press Conference- announced plan to build a Juvenile prison in suburban west Werribee Sth., after the young thugs trashed/ burnt their Juvenile Prison in leafy inner Parkville. Plan now embarassingly dropped after polls showed the ALP would LOSE this once-thought super-safe "impregnable"seat! Prison now to be built next to the Werribee tip!).
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-...-youth-prison-after-werribee-protests/8355282
.The AFL now owns 100% Docklands (worth currently c. $1, 250,000,000 -1,500,000,000).
As is widely acknowledged, it has achieved this by Footscray & North (& St Kilda) being forced by the AFL central ground philosophy to accept grossly unfair/financially pernicious tenancy Agreements. These Clubs have subsidised the AFL's ownership (which the AFL wants to monetise by converting Docklands waterfront side, with Vic. Govt. $300,000,000 funding, into a 365 day pa tourist mecca).
Morally & politically, it would be another PR disaster for the Docklands-rich AFL to boot either of these Clubs -who created this AFL wealth.
It also helps that Footscray & Nth. supporter bases are the 2 closest to Docklands & the proposed new "high tech/affluent/high density/job growth" suburb of Montague/Fisherman's Bend, to be built over the next 40 years. This is mooted as the world's largest new residential redevelopment that is directly next to a CBD. Both ALP & Libs. are supporting this new suburb, which will create a net c.80,000 increase in pop. in this underused area- & many thousands of jobs also. The AFL is very aware of this new affluent pop. on its Docklands' doorstep -& its implications for the AFL's own proposed 365 day pa new entertainment revenue streams.
For the plan of one company only, for one part only of the new Fishermans Bend (ie doesn't inc. adjoining new suburb Montague), see:-
http://www.smh.com.au/business/prop...fishermans-bend-projects-20170314-guxsae.html
Incidentally, regd. GR AF player nos. have increased c. 100% since the 70's -in line with pop. growth. Also, we are now, since estab. of the the nthn. Academies, recruiting good nos. of AFL players from NSW & Qld. -which is likely to increase further, as GR contact male RL & RU regd. nos are in a long term decline.
Thus, it is a myth we don't have enough quality players for 18 sides -or 20. They all kick well with their non-preferred now, unlike pre 1990!
The game aesthetics would increase if we reverted to the 90 year old 2 on the bench only -thus releasing 36 quality AFL players.
Last edited:
- May 13, 2012
- 15,812
- 5,965
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Other Teams
- Brumbies, Socceroos
Any club which goes through a 30 year patch of not winning the premiership should be relegated.
Garlic muncher
Cancelled
- Feb 3, 2016
- 4,480
- 3,258
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
We are also seeing more Irish players on lists, the odd American/Canadian or 2 and no doubt other nationalities, i think there is some more big Americans on the way, so in theory in the future we actually should have a deeper pool for 18 teams.
precarious
Senior List
Yes, I think the economic tendency in general is for labor supply slowly to adjust to labor demand. We see this for national economies as a whole. During sustained stagnation and ongoing weak labor demand, the 'discouraged-worker effect' sees labor force participation numbers drop and, if the malaise is less than global, possibly emigration (or reduced immigration) as people look elsewhere for opportunity. In periods of strong and sustained economic growth, the participation rate rises and the rate of immigration may accelerate in response to emerging opportunities.
In the case of AFL expansion, the AFL is actively driving such a longer-term adjustment of player supply to player demand through grassroots efforts in the expansion states and also by making provisions for development of overseas talent. When the number of teams is increased (from 16 to 18 recently, or from 18 to 20 perhaps in the future), this represents a demand for more AFL-quality players, creating additional opportunity. This gives incentive for people to take up the game, which the AFL consciously caters to at the grassroots level through its skills development programs. A proviso is that there needs to be the capacity to pay competitive salaries to the increased number of players and support staff. But, to a significant degree, there is overlap between the AFL's attempt to develop players in the expansion states and its attempt to grow the popularity of the game and its revenue.
The recent move to 18 teams from 16 could be said to be "quality neutral' in its long-term effects on player depth if grassroots efforts combined with population increase managed to grow the stock of AFL-quality players by 12.5 percent (i.e. 18/16 - 1). Since NSW and QLD represent a bit over half the country's population, the hope is that increasing the rate of development of players from these largely-untapped states while at the same time continuing to develop (and strengthen the development of) the heartland will ultimately achieve this level of growth in playing stocks and more.
I'm sure this is true but it's important to note that the international players aren't really deepening the pool so much as increasing the number of "behind the ball" outside running players and rucks / ruck forwards
Particularly inside mids and forwards need to play the game from a young age and I suspect "quality" is judged most on these players....I think the growth of the game north east of the barrassi line is where the broader depth will come from
Garlic muncher
Cancelled
- Feb 3, 2016
- 4,480
- 3,258
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
I don't think we have seen a key position player from Ireland, not counting Stynes who was more of a running ruckman, they have tried quite a few, but they seem to produce plenty of running HBF types.
BringBackTorps
Club Legend
- Jan 5, 2017
- 2,963
- 1,827
- AFL Club
- GWS
The jury is still out on the benefits of recruiting 2 mtr extremely athletic Americans. They can jump highly and get Ruck taps -but, until now, are very poor in, regularly, taking contested pack marks, which is essential for these giants.
I suspect that only elite athletic hard running Gaelic players can succeed -generally as defensive AFL players (ie as they don't have elite skills).
Garlic muncher
Cancelled
- Feb 3, 2016
- 4,480
- 3,258
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
I would agree, the jury is still out, however these trials still go ahead yearly in America and elsewhere, a couple of serviceable players have been found, the theory is America has an absolute shipload of these 2 metre players who are still great athletes, whereas Australia seems to have shortage or so they tell us
Hey mate, not sure you are aware but Roy Hay bought out a new article .....https://theconversation.com/indigen...tralian-rules-but-did-make-it-their-own-76606
Thought you may be interested.
_Mike_
Super Moderator
- Aug 10, 2009
- 33,227
- 32,045
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Tottenham, Montreal Canadiens
- Moderator
- #1,210
I dont believe the competition needs another or more expansion teams in the current context of the spread. The major factors going against the inclusion would be
- lack of stadiums
- opportunities for the supporter base expansion
Neither the NT or Tas could realistically support the introduction of a new expansion team on the premise that there isnt enough market share in those locations. I wasnt really a fan of expanding from the 16 team comp to the 18 team comp either as its been hit and miss in some areas. GCS havent quite been able to get off the ground to where the AFL had hoped they'd be by now, and GWS is starting to come good in which some finals success should see their membership base increase.
Victoria is out of the question which then leaves either WA, SA or NSW. The question being - which market has the bigger capability to accommodate another team or two in the comp?
- lack of stadiums
- opportunities for the supporter base expansion
Neither the NT or Tas could realistically support the introduction of a new expansion team on the premise that there isnt enough market share in those locations. I wasnt really a fan of expanding from the 16 team comp to the 18 team comp either as its been hit and miss in some areas. GCS havent quite been able to get off the ground to where the AFL had hoped they'd be by now, and GWS is starting to come good in which some finals success should see their membership base increase.
Victoria is out of the question which then leaves either WA, SA or NSW. The question being - which market has the bigger capability to accommodate another team or two in the comp?
The Irish players generally do have elite foot skills and also have important offensive games....it's just the nature of their game sees them fit perfectly into outside running and/or creative passing half back types. Gaelic forward play is very different to AF and there is nothing like the contested inside game in the latter
I would agree, the jury is still out, however these trials still go ahead yearly in America and elsewhere, a couple of serviceable players have been found, the theory is America has an absolute shipload of these 2 metre players who are still great athletes, whereas Australia seems to have shortage or so they tell us
Hey mate, not sure you are aware but Roy Hay bought out a new article .....https://theconversation.com/indigen...tralian-rules-but-did-make-it-their-own-76606
Thought you may be interested.
I think the theory is that there is this large number of 21/22 year olds who've had three years in an elite development program but weren't drafted into NBA or to a lesser extent NFL.
[QUOT
Thus, it is a myth we don't have enough quality players for 18 sides -or 20. They all kick well with their non-preferred now, unlike pre 1990!
The game aesthetics would increase if we reverted to the 90 year old 2 on the bench only -thus releasing 36 quality AFL players.[/QUOTE]
The easiest and and cheapest way to improve the quality of players is to have only 16 players on the field and 3 interchange
This would free up millions of dollars say about forty or more players players on AFL lists being paid $200,000 is a cool $8 million + and while at it the AFL MUST look at the massive wages the top 10 AFL excutives/mates are being paid it is a disgrace
Just because the AFL has all that lovely TV money they dont have to squander it on themselves! Have a look a the NRL to see how easily the TV bonanza can be frittered away.
Thus, it is a myth we don't have enough quality players for 18 sides -or 20. They all kick well with their non-preferred now, unlike pre 1990!
The game aesthetics would increase if we reverted to the 90 year old 2 on the bench only -thus releasing 36 quality AFL players.[/QUOTE]
The easiest and and cheapest way to improve the quality of players is to have only 16 players on the field and 3 interchange
This would free up millions of dollars say about forty or more players players on AFL lists being paid $200,000 is a cool $8 million + and while at it the AFL MUST look at the massive wages the top 10 AFL excutives/mates are being paid it is a disgrace
Just because the AFL has all that lovely TV money they dont have to squander it on themselves! Have a look a the NRL to see how easily the TV bonanza can be frittered away.
The easiest and and cheapest way to improve the quality of players is to have only 16 players on the field and 3 interchange
This would free up millions of dollars say about forty or more players players on AFL lists being paid $200,000 is a cool $8 million + and while at it the AFL MUST look at the massive wages the top 10 AFL excutives/mates are being paid it is a disgrace
Just because the AFL has all that lovely TV money they dont have to squander it on themselves! Have a look a the NRL to see how easily the TV bonanza can be frittered away.[/QUOTE]
Agreed, or is the AFL just about greed.
I liked the old VFA 16 a side I saw a few times when I worked in Melbourne.
Considering the game looks like a rolling maul these days, this may be a good idea.
Also put the brakes on footy department spending. We then might better reward players & also better support junior & community football development around the place.
Some of us live in hope.
BringBackTorps
Club Legend
- Jan 5, 2017
- 2,963
- 1,827
- AFL Club
- GWS
Agreed, or is the AFL just about greed.
I liked the old VFA 16 a side I saw a few times when I worked in Melbourne.
Considering the game looks like a rolling maul these days, this may be a good idea.
Also put the brakes on footy department spending. We then might better reward players & also better support junior & community football development around the place.
Some of us live in hope.
[/QUOTE]Some Clubs spend more on their (non-player wage) Football Depts. than they do on player wages!!!
It is all designed to enrich the hangers-on in the "football industry"(sic).
We should slash the wages of the Club Football dept. staff by about 40% -this would release an additional c. $90,000,000 pa on promoting the GR, rebuilding Tas., more Devel. Officers in NSW & Qld., building the much needed community female-specific facilities which are essential to cater for the huge female growth.
sherb
Hall of Famer
Yes, we need another AFL club.
Tasmania.
Tasmania.
Tassie needs better footy investment for a start. Junior & TSL.
Channel 10 still solvent but placed into administration eh Roy? Watch & learn !!
- Moderator
- #1,218
'Watch and learn' what exactly?
What's your point?
Fitzroy was solvent in 1996 (ask ASIC who found no evidence that Fitzroy was insolvent when KMPG was raided in 1996) but was still placed in administration. Briefly, a secured creditor (Nauru) appointed an administrator to Fitzroy pursuant to Part 5.3A (436C) of the Corporations Act 2001.
5.3A 436A of the Corporations Act 2001 states that a Company may appoint an administrator if the board of that company thinks it is or will become insolvent. Part 5.3A 436B states that a Liquidator may appoint an administrator while Part 5.3A 436C states that a secured party may appoint an administrator. Note the bold of the last section because this is what happened to Fitzroy.
"A person who is entitled to enforce a security interest in the whole, or substantially the whole, of a company's property may by writing appoint an administrator of the company if the security interest has become, and is still, enforceable."
Nauru Insurance Company was Fitzroy’s primary (and only secured) creditor. It was they who appointed the administrator to recover their debt (which wasn't due until 2001 incidentally) because North Melbourne (at the instigation of the AFL) refused to release any more than $550,000 of the $1.25 million owed to Nauru from the merger monies of the $6 million that the AFL had promised in the event of two clubs merging into a new club. In this case it was going to be the North Fitzroy Kangaroos.
So on 25 July 1996, the creditors of the company (Fitzroy Football Club) resolved that Fitzroy should enter a Deed of Company Arrangement (instead of the creditor's other two choices permissable by the Corporations Act 2001 which was liquidation or ending the administration). On 4 August 1996 a deed was executed by Fitzroy (controlled by Michael Brennan as administrator) and the Brisbane Bears Football Club Ltd. In consideration of Brisbane Bears Football Club Ltd. agreeing to pay or procure the payment of various amounts mentioned in the deed, and to provide certain indemnities, Fitzroy agreed to transfer all its operations and activities as an AFL club (including its football operations) to the Brisbane Bears with effect from 1 November 1996. As part of the Deed, Fitzroy (i.e the administrator) relinquished its licence to compete in the AFL competition. THe AFL gave permission for all its AFL owned trademarks pertaining to Fitzroy to be used by the Brisbane Bears Football Club from Season 1997 onwards. The Brisbane Bears subseqently re-branded their club identity and continued in the AFL as the Brisbane Lions.
Fitzroy Football Club remained in Melbourne, where after a period of time, the administrator returned control of the club to the elected directors and Fitzroy Football Club began rebuilding its club operations (totally independent of either the AFL or the Brisbane Bears / Lions). A registered charge was placed on the Fitzroy Football Club by the Brisbane Lions in respect to the monies the Brisbane Bears had paid Nauru out of the 'merger' monies but that was removed by Brisbane under the administration of Alan Piper.
The AFL could not force Fitzroy to merge or relocate within the structure of the AFL competition, no matter what it's financial situation, other than liquidation. What the AFL could do was (with the consent of the majority of the other clubs - two thirds in 1996 but 75% presently) to remove Fitzroy's licence to compete in the AFL competition. In the end the administrator of Fitzroy voluntarily surrendered Fitzroy's licence as part of the financial settlement. The other AFL clubs ratified that decision.
Channel 10 was placed in voluntary adminstration, presumably under 5.3A 436A of the Corporation Act 2001. The objective of a Voluntary Administration is to save a company so it can continue its operations.
Last edited:
We do NOT need another club.
Where? Tassie? Not going to work without a lot of pre work.
Perth? Arguably room there but if you look at social media and other stats the notion that WCE is a vast behemoth and there is room for more is actually vastly overplayed. I would leave WA a 2 team state for now.
Ditto SA.
NSW? two more than enough. Support for both more wide than deep.
Qld? Struggling with one.
Leave Vic alone. Obviously no room for more.
Where? Tassie? Not going to work without a lot of pre work.
Perth? Arguably room there but if you look at social media and other stats the notion that WCE is a vast behemoth and there is room for more is actually vastly overplayed. I would leave WA a 2 team state for now.
Ditto SA.
NSW? two more than enough. Support for both more wide than deep.
Qld? Struggling with one.
Leave Vic alone. Obviously no room for more.
Unfortunately 18 is way way too many teams , the game has been manipulated these last few years with strange rule changes to allow getting away with mediocre players from a small player pool to bigger team numbers, Crazy .
(Just one example , hand balling even when looking legal is ratty and badly aimed and performed some bad precision going on , worse than the past and of course the ones that are simply throws, but allowed that's just one example of greying the rules.)
No new teams in fact two less would be a gigantic improvement , imagine the talent pool spread over 14 elite teams.
And a new administration to stop any more manipulating of the game and in some cases these nonsensical rules.
Its a tragedy whats happened to this over fast over adjudicated simple as it used to be game, we don't have the population to guarantee quality all the time for a National elite skillful competition, the AFL simply sees dollars.
I think you are overstating it. If we got rid of 2 underperforming clubs, that might free up maybe 6 A grade players and 10 - 20 solid B performers, a handful of promising rookies, and a bunch of hacks.
Presumably the hacks are gone from lists, which leaves maybe 2 players to take up per club, with the likelihood that at least 1 of them is not a major improvement on what was already there.
Actual impact on quality minimal, impact on fans and impact on broadcast contract huge.
Sent from my Lenovo TB3-710F using Tapatalk
We have too many teams.
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.
Similar threads
- Poll
