IC17 2017 AFL International Cup

[jatz14]

In terms of fundraising, it would be a combination of AFL / aus government subsidy, own league fundraising (including national governments), sponsorship and players own contributions

I agree that certainly that there would be many other ideas with merit but I think the one advantage of a structured competition thats similar to rugby's "six nations" is it provides an apex for the rest of the game to grow under.

In terms of women's, I certainly had in mind a similar women's league as well.

Doubt any of those countries would qualify for Australian government subsidy, and most would get somewhere between nothing and a pittance from their own government. Lack of exposure means limited options for sponsorship.

In practice, it would all come from the local leagues or AFL. For the local leagues, it is an additional expense, and the AFL subsidises few comps in Australia, let alone overseas.

My local comp has produced more AFL players in the last couple of years than Europe will in a decade, and they get jack s**t from the AFL.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[NoobPie]

Doubt any of those countries would qualify for Australian government subsidy, and most would get somewhere between nothing and a pittance from their own government. Lack of exposure means limited options for sponsorship.

In practice, it would all come from the local leagues or AFL. For the local leagues, it is an additional expense, and the AFL subsidises few comps in Australia, let alone overseas.

My local comp has produced more AFL players in the last couple of years than Europe will in a decade, and they get jack s**t from the AFL.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

Actually some countries do get funding from their own governments for international rep teams and grass roots initiatives. What I am proposing is not a massive step change on activities that all ready occur....there seems to be heaps of travel among the aus football community in europe

Your comp gets jack s**t from the AFL (though it may get something from the WAFC?) but I bet it has its own fundraising efforts etc.

Having an annual international system that requires only two trips per country per year, but in a formal structure that makes sense to the locals, could be a vanguard for the games growth there.

 

[RedV3x]

In terms of fundraising, it would be a combination of AFL / aus government subsidy, own league fundraising (including national governments), sponsorship and players own contributions

Do you realize how many extra teams would come to the International Cup if they could afford it ?

Germany decided about coming to the International Cup up until this year.
They decided that he money could be better spent internally and now they have numerous metro leagues.
There are so many things a country's AFL would do before spending $20,000 on a very uneven competition.
The existing tournaments are very functional and getting better all the time.
Like the U.S.A. Nationals they are becoming economic events.

 

[NoobPie]

Do you realize how many extra teams would come to the International Cup if they could afford it ?

Germany decided about coming to the International Cup up until this year.
They decided that he money could be better spent internally and now they have numerous metro leagues.
There are so many things a country's AFL would do before spending $20,000 on a very uneven competition.
The existing tournaments are very functional and getting better all the time.
Like the U.S.A. Nationals they are becoming economic events.

I understand there are a lot of organic tournaments now. My thinking re the 5 team divisions would be to establish a structured 18 aside international activity through all these Rp countries can improve, galvanise behind. The est of $20k would be shared probably largely among the players but also through fundraising, particular potentially at the two home games. It's not $20k in bucket that is not otherwise spent on administrating leagues or training coaches and umpires

 

[Gigantor]

 

[Gigantor]

 

[RedV3x]

I understand there are a lot of organic tournaments now. My thinking re the 5 team divisions would be to establish a structured 18 aside international activity through all these Rp countries can improve, galvanise behind. The est of $20k would be shared probably largely among the players but also through fundraising, particular potentially at the two home games. It's not $20k in bucket that is not otherwise spent on administrating leagues or training coaches and umpires

It's simply $20k clubs don't have.
They're going with what they can afford.
They're going with 18-a-side where possible.

How can you possibly think this was a good idea when people criticize the structure of the I.C.
It's best to look at what's working and leverage off of that.
Great tournaments in France and Croatia. More tournaments needed like that.

countries can improve,

The biggest objective atm is to build numbers and raise standards through building numbers.
Improving the top end isn't going to do much atm.
IMO something is needed to get Europe totally fired up but not your suggestion.
That would be an European International Cup - all countries, multi-divisional, multi-field and large enough to leverage local support.

 

[NoobPie]

View attachment 406867

View attachment 406866

Again, how fugging disgraceful that the (not sure about the Hun) but the AGE provided exactly zero coverage of the international cup as far as I could tell...whereas participant countries are getting on the back page....why aren't you dead already fairfax. Just die

 

[TWLS]

Doubt any of those countries would qualify for Australian government subsidy, and most would get somewhere between nothing and a pittance from their own government. Lack of exposure means limited options for sponsorship.

In practice, it would all come from the local leagues or AFL. For the local leagues, it is an additional expense, and the AFL subsidises few comps in Australia, let alone overseas.

My local comp has produced more AFL players in the last couple of years than Europe will in a decade, and they get jack s**t from the AFL.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

You have nailed it unintentionally exactly Jatz in a different way.
The AFL is shyte frightened also of upsetting the domestic game by increasing the funding overseas. I have suspected it for many years and when I fronted Kevin Sheehan in Perth in 2007,about funding, when the South Africans played at Subi he dropped his head and said I cannot comment.

 

[RedV3x]

The AFL is shyte frightened also of upsetting the domestic game by increasing the funding overseas.

It's nothing personal.
The AFL is in the business of advancing the AFL. Advancing Australian Football is a byproduct.
There should be a greater support for second tier organisations down to grassroots.
The AFL clubs would rather waste money on affiliations rather than ban second tier affiliations outright.
There's a huge saving right there.
The VFL put South Melbourne into Sydney to save the VFL not to expand football.
The VFL admitted WA and SA because those states were about to embargo their players.
The AFL has invested in NSW and Qld to primarily strengthen the AFL brand.
The AFL is investing in NZ because it wants to do the same.
The AFL invests in the Southern Hemisphere because it can leverage aid money.
The AFL doesn't invest in China - P.A. does.
The AFL invests in "combines" because they are a quick fix.
To my knowledge the only real AFL pathway that has been created is PNG to AFLQ.

 

[jatz14]

It's often noted that Australian football is a bit different than other sports in that the game is largely run by a league. Most of this stuff in other sports would get done by an organising body of some description that the various leagues would sit under.

So strictly speaking, funding overseas expansion, game development, women's football etc is not the AFLs job. The AFL is a league with responsibilities to 18 clubs.

What it does outside this it does because it's in its interests, and/or it needs to be done, and no one else can do it.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[RedV3x]

It's often noted that Australian football is a bit different than other sports in that the game is largely run by a league. Most of this stuff in other sports would get done by an organising body of some description that the various leagues would sit under.

Except probably NFL, MBL, NBA, NHL

So strictly speaking, funding overseas expansion, game development, women's football etc is not the AFLs job.

Except they assumed responsibility, pressure everybody to come under the AFL umbrella and actively discourage any alternative.

 

[jatz14]

Except probably NFL, MBL, NBA, NHL



Except they assumed responsibility, pressure everybody to come under the AFL umbrella and actively discourage any alternative.

Umm, no.

All of those sorts have significant national and or international bodies distinct from those leagues. They are merely the dominant league within the sport.

Baseball, Hockey, Basketball all have well established international confederations. I am assuming American football as well. They all have a version of soccer's FIFA, even if they do not have the clout or the money.

For Aussie rules, if you are looking at national bodies, or organisations effective at a international level, it's AFL and AFL only.

Canadian football maybe?

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[Gigantor]

Loop PNG‏ @looppng 4h4 hours ago
PNG’s AFL talent recognised

 

[RedV3x]

even if they do not have the clout or the money.

Which is the essential bit.

 

[jatz14]

Which is the essential bit.

No, it really isn't. The NFL is not responsible for the things the AFL is. The huge college football scene is independent of it for a start. FIBA isn't as monolithic as FIFA, but it is an organisation with real responsibility and clout. All of those leagues you mentioned are very big fish, but they are in a big pond, with other large fish. The AFL is a big fish in a little pond, with nothing but minnows.

Sent from my Lenovo TB3-710F using Tapatalk

 

[RedV3x]

No, it really isn't.

I don't agree with all your irrelevant talk. Why don't you just stick to the simple.
We all think there should be a world body to at least advise the AFL on O/S matters.
That's what you are trying to say isn't it ?
A world body would've formulated agreement on laws prior to the IC17 for instance.
Maybe standardize 9-a-side.
Be proactive in arranging tours, tournaments etc. (from and to Australia).

 

[Gigantor]

I don't agree with all your irrelevant talk. Why don't you just stick to the simple.
We all think there should be a world body to at least advise the AFL on O/S matters.
That's what you are trying to say isn't it ?
A world body would've formulated agreement on laws prior to the IC17 for instance.
Maybe standardize 9-a-side.
Be proactive in arranging tours, tournaments etc. (from and to Australia).

Some random bloke tried to establish a world body about 10 to 12 years ago. Somehow, I'm not sure how, the AFL put the kybosh on it.

The chances of an external body sitting above the AFL, that can dictate things to the AFL (similar to how FIFA is about to step in and abolish the FFA board) are next to zero, especially if it requires the AFL to establish it.

Looking at it from the AFL's point of view, the most commercially successful sport in Australia, why on Earth would they ever handover a scintilla of authority to anyone else?

Looking further back into history, a national governing body used to exist, in the days of the VFL, and it was very, very quickly subsumed by the AFL once it was able to bludgeon the other major state bodies into submission.

Do not expect the AFL to start dismantling what they have.

 

[RedV3x]

She chances of an external body sitting above the AFL, that can dictate things to the AFL (similar to how FIFA is about to step in and abolish the FFA board) are next to zero,

Nice rant but not anything like I suggested or in in tune with the examples I gave.
Basically putting a face on what already happens with organic football and what was discussed at IC17.

 

[Gigantor]

Nice rant but not anything like I suggested or in in tune with the examples I gave.
Basically putting a face on what already happens with organic football and what was discussed at IC17.

You used the expression "world body" didn't you? If such a body is dependent on the AFL establishing it, then you can rest assured it will never happen.

 

[RedV3x]

You used the expression "world body" didn't you? .

And I also mentioned some functions which you totally overlooked.
Since they actually lighten the load for the AFL why would there be a problem.

 

[Gigantor]

And I also mentioned some functions which you totally overlooked.
Since they actually lighten the load for the AFL why would there be a problem.

History tells us that the AFL doesn't want to share the load with anyone, certainly not anyone who might have a tiny bit of authority. They'd rather stick with the status quo where they can tell everyone what to do.

There can only ever be one chief.

 

[TWLS]

Some random bloke tried to establish a world body about 10 to 12 years ago. Somehow, I'm not sure how, the AFL put the kybosh on it.

The chances of an external body sitting above the AFL, that can dictate things to the AFL (similar to how FIFA is about to step in and abolish the FFA board) are next to zero, especially if it requires the AFL to establish it.

Looking at it from the AFL's point of view, the most commercially successful sport in Australia, why on Earth would they ever handover a scintilla of authority to anyone else?

Looking further back into history, a national governing body used to exist, in the days of the VFL, and it was very, very quickly subsumed by the AFL once it was able to bludgeon the other major state bodies into submission.

Do not expect the AFL to start dismantling what they have.

That random bloke was Brian Clarke, who now has a much lower profile, and originally set up the touring Convicts team which still exists I think.

If u guys want an example from another sport - Try this - In the early 1900`s the game of Soccer Football had spread worldwide courtesy of many factors and was semi governed by the Football Association, commonly known as the F.A, which was England, Scotland, Wales
They were not that interested in the overseas/offshore game but on the Continent and being offshore, the French and others were and proposed the FIFA set up.
A huge amount of politics and hard bargaining occurred and finally the Poms saw the light but did not relinquish control of the Laws of the game etc etc.
Some of this familiar in 2017, however totally agree Victorians will never relinquish control of the game they created so a compromise will have to be reached eventually somehow somewhere. Perhaps AFL Europe, AFL Asia and AFL America and others could combine in Annual meetings in conjunction with the AFL to arrange all overseas matters pertaining to the Code- Just a thought - All comments welcome.

The organic overseas growth model suits the AFL at present, and the game will continue to expand despite all of the difficulties, which in itself is a bit of a miracle, considering the funding issues discussed for ever on here.
Have to say this forum has been reborn recently - Thanks to all concerned.

 

[RedV3x]

That random bloke was Brian Clarke,

Was involved in London, Europe and Africa. Recently given money for South America.

however totally agree Victorians will never relinquish control of the game they created so a compromise will have to be reached eventually somehow somewhere.

One of the biggest sentiments that is holding Australian Football back.
The game is acknowledged to a ..... New South Welshman and spread quickly across all of the neighbouring colonies.
Time for Victorians to let the strings go.
Seriously do you hear poms saying the world is playing English Rules Football.

Perhaps AFL Europe, AFL Asia and AFL America and others could combine in Annual meetings in conjunction with the AFL to arrange all overseas matters pertaining to the Code- Just a thought - All comments welcome.

AFL officers are concerned with what can be done with given resources not what should be allocated.
Representives of O/S leagues could advise on local conditions which are very much under-rated by most.

.

The organic overseas growth model suits the AFL at present, and the game will continue to expand despite all of the difficulties,

Yes, Australian Football is growing in all directions and that sounds fabulous but it is a tragedy if we cannot take things to the next level.
For that to happen the AFL has to work WITH people.

 

[Gigantor]

That random bloke was Brian Clarke, who now has a much lower profile, and originally set up the touring Convicts team which still exists I think.

If u guys want an example from another sport - Try this - In the early 1900`s the game of Soccer Football had spread worldwide courtesy of many factors and was semi governed by the Football Association, commonly known as the F.A, which was England, Scotland, Wales
They were not that interested in the overseas/offshore game but on the Continent and being offshore, the French and others were and proposed the FIFA set up.
A huge amount of politics and hard bargaining occurred and finally the Poms saw the light but did not relinquish control of the Laws of the game etc etc.
Some of this familiar in 2017, however totally agree Victorians will never relinquish control of the game they created so a compromise will have to be reached eventually somehow somewhere. Perhaps AFL Europe, AFL Asia and AFL America and others could combine in Annual meetings in conjunction with the AFL to arrange all overseas matters pertaining to the Code- Just a thought - All comments welcome.

The organic overseas growth model suits the AFL at present, and the game will continue to expand despite all of the difficulties, which in itself is a bit of a miracle, considering the funding issues discussed for ever on here.
Have to say this forum has been reborn recently - Thanks to all concerned.

What you say about the English FA is true, of course it's a completely different time, and don't worry, you come across plenty of English football fans who lament having lost control of the game.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter what happened 100 years ago, right now, as we speak, the AFL controls every facet of the game, and there is no way known they will ever let go any part of it. The AFL is only interested in overseas expansion to the extent that it: increases TV money; increases sponsorship revenue; and it supplies additional athletes. If ever there was a risk of something like the English FA situation circa 1910 eventuating, I doubt the AFL would sit idly and simply watch it unfold.

We can even see with the "creation" of a shortened form of the game, the AFL pretended that a shortened form, of the game wasn't already being played overseas. That's because they want to own it: long form and short form. They are not interested in dealing with anyone anywhere as if they are some sort of equal partner.

In the Australian sports market, it is a strength that the AFL is not beholden to anyone. We can see FIFA sticking its nose into how soccer is run in Australia, we see SANZAAR stuffing the ARU around, while the AFL just sits back and counts its money. The AFL will always make sure there is no one else they need to confer with, other than itself.