Expansion

[Stealth bomber]

Anyone know what the AFL's expansion plans are?

I don't imagine the league is in that big a hurry considering money is rather tight for so many of the clubs already.

 

[WCE2000]

I reckon they should get a combined New Zealand side in there. They would struggle to even win a game, but at least it would increase popularity of the game in NZ.
Or if a combined NZ team didn't work, a combined world side perhaps.

 

[Grave Danger]

The AFL should have CONtraction plans, ie reduce the number of Victorian teams to 6. Then we could have a proper 22 round home and away season.

One contraction that totally puzzles me though is why the hell are the squads being reduced to 38 next year? At the same time the salary cap is going up again and all clubs are forced to expend a minimum 95% of their salary cap. So some pretty ordinary players are going to get a hefty pay rise.

There should still be a salary cap in place, but clubs should be able to use as many players as they want...

 

[Roylion]

It's well known that the AFL's long term plans are that 16 sides are the absolute maximum and that they see only a maximum of 8 clubs playing in Melbourne. In my view there will be a second side out of Sydney, a second side out of Queensland and possibly a team in NZ, within 20 years. They will probably be all relocations, with POSSIBLY the Sydney Kangaroos operating out of Sydney, the Auckland Bulldogs perhaps out of NZ and the Southport Saints from the Gold Coast. Whatever the final scenario or the clubs involved, relocation is infinitely better than merger. At least histories, tradition and some identity can be maintained. Whatever the case there will NEVER be more than 16 clubs in the competition.

 

[FreoRules]

Grave Danger

Very good point. i can't believe sides still have to spend 95% of their cap despite the fact that they are performing badly on the field.
You can thank AFL agents for that bit of great legislation.
I agree that a certain percentage should be spent as players are what we watch but only about 80% and reward players when it is needed.
The fact that the Pies, Dockers, port, Saints and even the Eagles pay the same as Essendon and Carlton is staggering.

 

[Pessimistic]

Grave Danger,
Get rid of four victorian sides and you might just disenfranchise a good third of the victorian footy population. How strong would 'your' competition be then ? Could the Power and the Dockers (who a pathetic crowd in perth)take the strain ? The so called TV and Corporate money would dissapear so fast as well.

Victorian clubs are holding their own at the moment, and occupy the majority of the top eight positions. Only the Lions are in there (with the softest draw possible)

The main challenge to victorian clubs is the rapidly rising turnover needed to run a club (Hawthorn has gone from $4million to $15 in five years) The AFL is fueling a wages explosion in the hope that they can drag down a couple of victorian clubs but the beautiful iron is that if they succeed, it will cost so much more to establish and run a club in a new market (sydney for example) that they will fall flat on their faces

Stabilise the competition as it is. Wasn't fitzroy enough ?

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

Its hard to predict the future with any certainty but I can look forward ten years to 2010 and see :

- things have not changed a helluva lot really. There are still 16 clubs and they are the same ones that are running around today, but

- The Kangaroos are playing 2 Home games in Canberra, 2 home games at Homebush Stadium in Western Sydney and 1 Home Game at the SCG every year.

- Saint Kilda and Melbourne play one home game each in Tasmania every year, swapping between Launceston and Hobart.

- Western Bulldogs (or Hawthorn)play 1 home game in Wellington NZ every year.

- There is a Tasmanian team in the VFL, a Northern Territory team in the SANFL, a team from the NW Coast in the Westar Rules, and the SydneyFL and ACT FL have merged and consolidated.

Not much change, just a bit of fiddling around the edges as Melbourne teams strive to shore up their support and maximise their revenues from alternative sources.

 

[WCE2000]

This is what i reckon the AFL should be looking for as far as expansion is concerned;
1. Introduce the New Zealand team into the competition. This would mean anybody who has been in the AFL from New Zealand and has been at their current club for less than three years will play for the New Zealand side. So Wayne Schwass would still stay at Sydney because this is hes fourth year at the Swans. This is because the Swans shouldn't be forced to give a good player up who has been loyal to the club for a while. I think Schwass may be the only player in the competition from NZ.
2. Introduce a rule in which every club must have at least 25 players from their own state (ie West Coast 25 from WA and Kangaroos must have 25 from Victoria). This is mainly targeted at Sydney and Brisbane who had 10 and 13 players respectively from their own state on their 1999 list's. This would mean it really is a Sydney or Brisbane side, not just a bunch of Victorian's playing in Sydney or Brisbane. This would mean that every player who has;
a) been at their club for 3 or less years (since 1998) and;
b) Playing for a club that is not in their home state.
Players under this category (Luke Power - plays for Brisbane from Victoria or Lenny Hayes - plays for Sainst from NSW) would all come of contract automattically, so clubs from their home state could sign.
We'll use Lenny Hayes as an example; He has played for St Kilda since 1999 but he is orignally from New South Wales. Therefore he would automattically come of contract. Then Sydney have the first chance to sign any young players from New South Wales so that they comply with the law of 25 home players from their state. If they have signed all they players they want and they now have 25 players on their list from NSW, they can release all the rest of the players they haven't yet signed. Just say that Swans didn't want to sign Lenny Hayes (even though they would) then St Kilda are the next side that get the chance to sign him. If Saints don't sign him, he then becomes free to sign with any club.
Obviously, St Kilda fans would be unhappy with this, however it works both ways. They might lose Lenny Hayes, but then they would have the oppurtunity to sign a lot of young Victorian Players, ie. Luke Power, Adam Goodes, Marcus Picken etc,.
Another player, Tarkyn Lockyer, he would also come of contract from Collingwood. Then West Coast and Fremantle would be able to sign him. If he chooses not sign, then Collingwood has the next chance to sign. Then if he doesn't sign with them he is open to negiotate with any club.
Adam Goodes, would come of contract from Sydney, and all 10 Victorian clubs, would then be negiotating for him. If doesn't sign, then Sydney can sign him again. If he still hasn't signed with a club, then any of the other 5 interstate clubs can sign him.
It would be confusing for spectators to work out what is going on, but at the end of it all, it would truly be a team from Sydney, or from Brisbane etc,.
Just say Sydney or Brisbane still haven't got 25 players from their home state, then they would have to sign players from their local competition's.
3. Introduce a 3rd WA team - Claremont. Any player who has been with their team for 3 years and is from the club Claremont, would come of contract with their current club, and would be playing for Claremont.
4. Promote one of the leading clubs in the VFL that are not a feeder club to the AFL. I think North Ballarat are the highest club in the VFL that are not a feeder club. So there would be a club called the Ballarat Rebels.
5. Because of the 25 player rules (see point 2) there would be a number of players that did not get re-signed, and then all players who were a part of the 1996 Fitzroy side would come of contract and then the AFL may be able to reintroduce Fitzroy into the competition. I know this is a long shot but if the AFL could help absorb some of the debts Fitzroy had, i'm sure they could get re-introduced into the competition. There have been a number of players from that Fitzroy club, who have become big names in the AFL now - Molloy, Clayton, are two of the biggest names. Obviously they wouldn't have a side that would be good enough to compete with Essendon and Carlton etc,. they would be able to buy some bigger name players. Eventually with time, they would be able to be competitive, they would start making money and would be able to pay off past debts.

There would now be 20 teams in the competition (I am aware that the AFL said they didn't want to exceed 16 but this means more games and more money). They would play each other once but plus another 3 teams twice making 22 games. Then an 8 games finals series.

 

[sandie]

WCE2000
What drugs are you on. We don't need bloody NZ in the league & every team must have 25 players from their own state. Dream on none of that will ever happen.

------------------
Mantis

 

[mtffafl]

WCE2000: Hate to say it but they are the most pathetic suggestions I've ever heard in my life.

At least 25 from your home state?

i.e. you want WC to get 25 of the top 50 from your state, while the 10 Victorian sides would have to have a total of 250 from Victoria?

And anyone currently at a club must automatically come out of contract if they aren't in their home state???

Do you realise why they implemented the draft? So that teams became more even.

The old zone system they used to have was abandoned because it was unfair.

And now you expect Port and Adelaide to have first crack at an entire state of football fanatics (South Australia), and force Sydney and Brisbane to recruit 25 from their home state each - I don't know the exact figures, but I doubt there would be many players from both those states, especially Queensland, running around at AFL level.

Your system would do 3 things.

1. Make South Australian, and to a lesser extent Western Australian teams powerhouses

2. Destroy Victorian based teams, and ensure that all 10 cannot be successful on the field at once

3. Make Brisbane and Sydney low quality teams

And at the same time completely abandoning the drafting system by making players 'available to sign with any club'...

Which will further advantage any rich teams by making them able to 'buy' players, leaving poorer teams with the leftovers.

This would have to be the most ridiculous proposal I have heard in my life.

Thanks,
Matt

 

[Roylion]

I thoroughly agree Matt. What a way to kill the expansion of the game in NSW or Queensland! Brisbane and Sydney would be permanently in the bottom half of the ladder, and so would many Victorian teams.

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

Hawthorn's Trent Croad is also a New Zealander

Great Uncle was an All-BLack and he is good mates with Jonah Lomu as well.

 

[Drakey]

I've just returned from a trip in my time machine & I'm sorry saints fans but you will relocate to southport.

To let you know what the future holds.

year 2000
Watson replaced as coach by Robert Shaw

2004
After 5 disasterous years at colonial the club is forced into receivership. Its licence is bought by Dr. Geofrey Edelson who has made a fortune out of upmarket heroin shooting galeries, in partnership with Christopher Skase who after a heart lung transplant returns to Australia & succesfully defends all charges against him.

2005
The team is relocated to southport playing their home games at Seaworld.
In a stroke of genius Barry Hall is named Playing Coach & a golden era for the club begins.

Premierships
2005-2010, 2012-2016, 2018, 2020, 2023-2025,
2027, 2029, 2031-2033, 2039-2042, 2046-2049.

By 2050 The Saints are the most successfull AFL club in history with 30 premierships.

Other points of interest

2015
Dan 24 is sacked as AFL CEO for trying to initiate a Home & Away Premiership

Collingwood are still shite

 

[Pessimistic]

The southport 'Joke'

There is nowhere in Australia or NZ which can sustain a club as well as in victoria, even though there are 10 clubs here (9 in Melbourne)So dream on about 'relocation this' and 'new club' that. The AFL has this fantasy (while the current bozos remain)but now they have driven costs up so that it costs $15million to support a team they will be hard pushed to finance it until it is profitable. Swans and Bears took ten years to establish so that's at least $100million needed to subsidise the team while it establishes. If the AFL pull it off they will need Packer or Murdoch money which would be a worry in itself.

Southport
Some Jokers suggest they have 100,000 members but this turns out to be 'Pokies membership' ie sign a form as you go through the door. Well the Hawks (for example) have a pokies venue too so there would be nothing in queensland for the likes of them.

Can any of you 'expansionists' or 'relocaters' tell me where the money would come from to establish a club in another location ?

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

Asolutely goddam dead right Pess

Thats why I have suggested that there will be NO relocations and No silly stuff like the Southport Saints or any of that rubbish.

What will happen is that the Kangaroos will evolve over the next few years into a 'hybrid' type club that will play its home games at Colonial Stadium, Homebush Stadium and Canberra.

Also I see already existing Melbourne clubs playing for premiership points in New Zealnd (1 game a season) and Tasmania (2 games a season)

But thats as far as it is going to go. As pessimistic points out the costs of running an AFL operation would make any move to re-locate clubs to places like New Zealand a financial disaster.

Also the experiment involving other Melbourne clubs playing home games against the Swans at the SCG will not go very far. The Swans are more concerned with looking after our Melbourne supporter base, so would not be interested in playing any more away games at the SCG.

[This message has been edited by Bloodstained Angel (edited 25 July 2000).]

 

[Pessimistic]

I'd be OK with the Hawks playing the 'odd' home game on the road so long as it was a less attractive one.

eg Home game against: Melbourne in Hobart :Geelong in Geelong : Fremantle in perth

Subject to the 'Eddie Mcguire' rule of at lease 18 games in melbourne.

Am I being cynical but is the push for VIC clubs to play home games 'away' to gt some Interstate clubs back in the eight

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

now THAT is cynical Pess ...

Have just heard in the news that Melbourne have signed an agreement to play the Lions in a Demons home fixture at the Gabba for the next five years.

Will make more money for the Demons than the corresponding fixture in Melbourne but you have to wonder sometimes where all this is heading, also I thought the Demons were more interested in playing home games in Tasmania than Brisbane ?

 

[Roylion]

There's no doubt in my mind that there will be second clubs in both Sydney and Brisbane sooner or later (and within 20 years). Clubs are testing the waters by playing interstate games, where they pick up the gate.

If an existing Melbourne club has the choice between extinction, merger or relocation, which option would they take? In my opinion relocation would win 90% of the time. If a Melbourne club was to relocate where would they go in Queensland? Southport is the obvious choice, is a multi-million dollar business with assets of about $18 million (from memory) and has public ambitions of one day fielding an AFL team. The late Alan Piper stated last year that of all the locations in Queensland that could field another AFL team, Southport was the logical choice. He foreshadowed that Southport in the AFL would play its home games from the Gabba, effectively allowing 22 games of football a year. Sydney is such a large potential market that any team considering how it might best survive would consider relocating here. A recent Age report suggested that out of all the clubs Western Bulldogs and St Kilda are the most vulnerable, while the Swans came out last week and suggested the Kangaroos needed to become "fair-dinkum" about Sydney and not be just 'fly-ins' if they wanted any success up there. Recent media reports have also suggested that the AFL is considering NZ as a possibility for an AFL side.

Under this sort of climate I think 2-3 Melbourne teams partially or totally relocating is a realistic proposition. I don't believe Melbourne can, unfortunately. continue to support 10 AFL sides, especially with the running costs of an AFL side continuing to rise. Sooner or later 1-2 sides will leave Melbourne. In what circumstances they will do so, is debatable.

 

[Pessimistic]

No matter how hard, Victorian sides can draw on their support to get through. Re-locate a club and someone has to pay big bickies to support a team in a hostile market. $15million a year costs makes it difficult in Melbourne but Almost impossible anywhere elss. It would soon 'suck' all the money out of little old southport. And didn't the bears have to leave the gold coast to make money

I repeat Where will the money come from ? Answer that and you might be taken seriously

It took the rescources of Newscorp to establish the Melbourne storm. Do you want Packer or Murdoch to have control of footy ?

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

Just for your information Pess you might be interested to know that News Limited (the Murdoch family business)has sunk a truly staggering $600 million (thats right 600 MILLION) into the Rugby League / Super League thing up here from 1995-2000

Given the current levels of support that this code, ummmm, enjoys it will take something like 40 years for News Limited to recoup that investment.

Of course they never will and I have also heard a rumour that News Limited are gonna get out of Rugby League alltogether because it is just making any kind of decent money at all.

If you take Murdoch's money out of Rugby League then the game will collapse immediately.

DON'T LET WHAT HAPPENED TO RUGBY LEAGUE HAPPEN TO AUSTRALIAN RULES FOOTBALL

 

[Lion_bear]

Southport has a membership already of over 50,000. They have a team in the QSFL competition. That team has won the competition in the last few year. They actually have players like Mackay who could be AFL players on their ability.
As for the bears moving to Brisbane, that was totally different. The management structures then and now are chalk and cheese.Southport could survive and prosper from their home ground at Southport, playing at the Gabba. They already have asked the AFL if they need to upgrade their home ground to AFL standards for seating, and been told no, you will be playing at the Gabba. This was reported widley in the media in Queensland.A broke Melbourne based team could do a lot worse than relocating to Southport. The Southport Saints have the revenue base and ongoing support already to thrive in the AFL competition.

 

[Pessimistic]

Lion_bear

Tell us the truth. I heard reports that southport have 100,000 members, and others that most of these are members only to play the pokies

How many would pay the $150 a year for membership at the gabba ? I heard the lions had trouble filling their quota this year.

 

[sainter]

Regardless of money, would you think the "Southport Saints" (won't bring myself to say it unless it is in inverted commas) would have enough crowd support in Queensland? Of course not!

Apparently those 50,000 'gaming' members cost $5. It is amazing how people can twist facts around to suit their own stories.

Because rest assured, no saints supporters would give a shit about the new team.

 

[Roylion]

Well Sainter that's what was said also about the Swans' move north and Fitzroy's merger with Brisbane. Collectively about 18,000 Victorian Swans and Lions fans DO give a shit about the teams that have relocated or merged north, by either buying memberships or turning up as barrackers to their Melbourne games. Why wouldn't a large slice of Saints supporters follow the relocated team, especially if the Saints could keep their colours, emblem, song, history and traditions?

Personally I would hate to see St Kilda leave Melbourne or merge with another club. However what happens IF and WHEN there is no other option? The recent report in the Age on the financial health of the Victorian clubs seemed to imply that St Kilda and the Bulldogs are the clubs in most danger, just as for years the media speculated about Fitzroy's future. As members we used to put a brave face on the reports to the point where even the administration was saying everything's OK. At the same time they were secretly negotiating mergers.

I don't believe Victorian sides can draw on their support to get through forever. As to the claim by Pessimisic that $15 million a year costs makes it difficult in Melbourne but almost impossible anywhere else. Well ALL the interstate clubs are easily outstripping MOST of the Victorian clubs in terms of turnover and profits. Melbourne is where the problems are, to the point where clubs are now starting to play home games interstate.

Where would the money come from? Let's take a club relocating to Southport and playing its home games at the Gabba.

1) The gate: Queensland Footy is booming. Record crowds at the Gabba this year have meant that Brisbane is set to post a record profit. Last year they made $3.3 million from the gate, in a year where large parts of the Gabba were out of action. Melbourne is set to make about $300,000 from playing one game at the Gabba, with little support in Queensland.
The AFL has made it clear that if there ever is a Southport side they will be playing their home games at the Gabba. Brisbane supports this.

2) Memberships: Brisbane has 20,000 odd members, one of the lowest in the league. This brought in $2.5 million in revenue for the club last year. The AFL may have to underwrite a club for the first couple of years in terms of memberships but I guess that this will easily be covered in the proceeds from the sale of Waverley. Membership of Southport in Queensland in their first year could conceivably be 10,000 or so, with the AFL underwriting the rest. Let's say Southport could perhaps make half of what Brisbane make in their first year with $1.2 million

3) The social club. Brisbane's social club brought in 3.2 million revenue last year. The Southport club is well established, profitable and easily outstrips this figure. Let's say $6 million.

4) AFL Dividend to all clubs. Last year $2.6 Million. Let's say the same.

5) Corporate Sales - Brisbane made $4.1 Million last year from selling corporate boxes etc etc. Let's say 2.0 million for the new Southport team in its first year.

6) 4.8 million was made by Brisbane from other sources of income, such as major sponsorships. AAPT will pump about a million dollars into Brisbane this year alone. Let's say Southport have one major sponsor or sponsors worth about $1 million a year.

Total Revenue that Southport could realistically make would be perhaps about $16.1 million with the AFL underwriting another 1.2 million for lost memberships as a result of the relocation and also perhaps another 4 million for the relocation costs. It cost about 4 million for Brisbane and Fitzroy to merge, but that was mainly to pay off Fitzroy's creditors.

This is just in its first year in the AFL.

Grand Total $21.3 million revenue for Southport
Expenditure: about $19.5 million, the amount it took to run the Brisbane Lions in Season 1999.
Profit: (with AFL assistance): $1.8 million
Without AFL assistance: 3.4 million loss.

As the club became more established and more popular, the revenue would increase. Of course so would the expenditures, but the potential is there for good profit, if the club was managed and marketed well. In Melbourne some of these revenues and figures mentioned above are a pipe dream for some clubs. Brisbane and the Gold Coast are Australia's fastest growing areas and Australian Rules Football is the State's fastest growing sport (at the moment). Southport is a viable alternative at least.

 

[Bernie]

THe trend about Melbourne clubs playing their 'home' games away ... is this not pre-empting the draw ?

for example - Demons play their home game V Lions at Gabba. What about their away game V Lions , or are they saying -' we only want to play them once ? '.

Apparently the Lions can guarantee $$ for ground usage - why doesn't Carlton do this ? Or was it tried and failed ( this wierd deal about Colonial crowds less that 15,000 and the AFL paying $$ to Carlton ).

Why don't all the Lions games get played at the Gabba - home AND away ... then we'd all be in the money !!