Expansion Is the AFL good for footy?

[Tonatopia]

The AFL play in Canberra, Ballarat & Launceston, all colder in Winter than Hobart. Indeed Melbourne can be just as chilly when it wants to be.

Whtever the merits & benefits for the game, the AFL would never come at it. Not interested in much outside themselves.

Good for people seeking to make money, not good for the future of the game. Football will exist to regret the current developments in the game.

GC will be tested hard. Even harder than GWS. Which player in their right mind would want to be forced to play there in comparison to their local clubs. Just look at the exodus. It is just starting.
Maybe GWS was a good bet. But an expensive one if it takes 20 years. I'm sure GFC2 will bust us before GWS can survive on it's own.

 

[NoobPie]

That's the point!

The current AFL corporate entity have an agenda!

The AFL commission (and so exec) has a number of agenda's, either constitutionally required of them or strategically announced in pursuit of their interpretation of their remit.

It clearly has a focus (and certainly at times it can be argued to skewed a focus) on revenue maximisation like every other professional sporting body on the planet

With the exception of the GAA, I'd be shocked if any other wealthy sporting body on the planet directs a greater proportion of its revenues to game development and grass roots

It has a massive advantage of a complete absence of private ownership, which it exploits

One way it is exploiting this in pursuit of its stated "agenda" to be the dominant sport on Australia's eastern seaboard in ~50 years. This is as much about ensuring the game continues to grow and thrive more generally. The tree that isn't growing is a dead tree

They are influenced by factions that dwell deep within Victorias political and business hierarchies.

Youre getting a bit weird now. This is almost Illuminati stuff

Every dominant professional sporting culture is networked in to other political, business and cultural institutions in the regions they are dominant.

Australian football in Melbourne is perhaps more so on account of the fact that the game was codified here 24 years after the city was founded (I hope I'm not being rude in speculating that is only a few years older than you?)

This is highlighted by their almost fundamentalist stance towards equalization. You would assume Carlton would be fuming. Before big afl government assumed control, they had the support and funding to dominate the league. If ever a club required a new John Elliot and a moto like Make Carlton Great Again, well then, they should be allowed to do it. The draft system is preventing them. It restricts freedom!

Equalisation is a fundamental principle of the AFL (as in the professional competition). It is self evidently effective to anyone who knows any history and has copious volumes of supporting theoretical and empirical research for anyone who knows any sports economics.

Carlton are the architects of their own destitution. I'd be surprised if a majority of Carlton fans didn't agree with that statement. Likewise nobody wants to go back to the cheque book driven league the VFL was when it was going broke back in the 80s.

Carlton can rebuild within the same system everyone else plays within. That system, thank f-ing christ, doesn't allow some third world kleptocrat to buy out a club and unleash inflationary pressures on everyone else. Your football department spend is kept within the same budget envelope (or atleast you pay a 100% tax on any excessive expenditure)

I am not an outright free market neo con, I do believe in a stringent 'player only' salary cap. But that is it! Everything else is fair game. That means, entry into our league is fair game, if your good enough to sustain it.

What the AFP has done is denied entry into its exclusive group. You have got to ask yourself, who exactly asked for gws and gc? Who?
A greedy man called Dimetriou, that's who.

Well every club voted in favour of the expansion in the end (can't recall but a significant majority are required to for new clubs to be added) for a start

The decision was part of the strategic objective to be the dominant sport nationally. Some people don't agree with this objective (I would argue because of some form of myopia) but it is a clear objective that adding second teams to Sydney and SEQ - the first and third largest populations in Australia - was clearly aligned to.

To favour a speculative GC over proven Tasmania, is pure greed. They estimated that Gold Coast was a safer choice than Tasmania, and where backed by local political officials and that a stadium would be built to cater for the rapid growth.

You appear to be confusing "prudent" with "pure greed"

Great negotiations in obtaining the rights to sell more broadcast rights on a new stadium. But truth has it, it doesn't scratch the surface compared to the Tasmanian football community that has enormous natural resources, both in quality football pedigree and natural resources, it could be argued that the AFL snub on Tas could be artificially suppressing the local economy and potential to retain incredibly talented local players. Imagine Tasmania having it's own little football fortress. Great place, but ******* cold!

There is a case for Tasmania to have a team one day with its government as a pseudo-guarntor I suspect

I've got no idea how it fits in with your anti-closed league drum beating though. You are aware that a closed league with 2 or 3 divisions is still a closed league don't you?

So it is not some club winning its way up a mythcial pyramid tut a licence being granted to an entity which would have a monopoly across Tasmania.

 

[NoobPie]

GC will be tested hard. Even harder than GWS. Which player in their right mind would want to be forced to play there in comparison to their local clubs. Just look at the exodus. It is just starting.
Maybe GWS was a good bet. But an expensive one if it takes 20 years. I'm sure GFC2 will bust us before GWS can survive on it's own.

You clearly haven't taken to the basic numeracy / financial literacy lessons I have provided you gratis in this thread

-The AFL had revenues of $750M last year
-Of this, it only a touch of $300M was distributed to clubs and $25M of this was to GCS
-The wealthy clubs turn over $60 to $80M with base distributions of around just $10 to 12M.
-total AFL and club revenue was around $1.4B last year
-the football department cap is, from memory, about $23M a year, less than a third of total game revenues. It has not even allowed CPI growth on this for the last few years despite massive growth in the games revenues

Forget 20 years. The AFL can sustain GWS and GCS in near perpetuity even if they do not grow anymore. It has rivers of revenue and unrivaled control over its costs. Even if the first is dries up (remembering it has 4 years left on a $425M TV deal and ownership over a 50K seat stadium) it can press down on the FD cap by 5% and save $20M just like that

Anyone lighting candles in vigil praying for the GCS to send the AFL broke are going to burn through enormous vats of wax

 

[Tonatopia]

The AFL has a number of agenda's, either constitutional based on strategically announced.

It clearly has a focus (and certainly at times it can be argued to skewed a focus) on revenue maximisation like every other professional sporting body on the planet

With the exception of the GAA, I'd be shocked if any other wealthy sporting body on the planet directs a greater proportion of its revenues to game development and grass roots

It has a massive advantage of a complete absence of private ownership, which it exploits

One way it is exploiting this in pursuit of its stated "agenda" to be the dominant sport on Australia's eastern seaboard in ~50 years. This is as much about ensuring the game continues to grow and thrive more generally. The tree that isn't growing is a dead tree



Youre getting a bit weird now. This is almost Illuminati stuff

Every dominant professional sporting culture is networked in to other political, business and cultural institutions in the regions they are dominant.

Australian football in Melbourne is perhaps more so on account of the fact that the game was codified here 24 years after the city was founded (I hope I'm not being rude in speculating that is only a few years older than you?)



Equalisation is a fundamental principle of the AFL (as in the professional competition). It is self evidently effective to anyone who knows any history and has copious volumes of supporting theoretical and empirical research for anyone who knows any sports economics.

Carlton are the architects of their own destitution. I'd be surprised if a majority of Carlton fans didn't agree with that statement. Likewise nobody wants to go back to the cheque book driven league the VFL was when it was going broke back in the 80s.

Carlton can rebuild within the same system everyone else plays within. That system, thank f-ing christ, doesn't allow some third world kleptocrat to buy out a club and unleash inflationary pressures on everyone else. Your football department spend is kept within the same budget envelope (or atleast you pay a 100% tax on any excessive expenditure)



Well every club voted in favour of the expansion in the end (can't recall but a significant majority are required to for new clubs to be added) for a start

The decision was part of the strategic objective to be the dominant sport nationally. Some people don't agree with this objective (I would argue because of some form of myopia) but it is a clear objective that adding second teams to Sydney and SEQ - the first and third largest populations in Australia - was clearly aligned to.




You appear to be confusing "prudent" with "pure greed"



There is a case for Tasmania to have a team one day with its government as a pseudo-guarntor I suspect

I've got no idea how it fits in with your anti-closed league drum beating though. You are aware that a closed league with 2 or 3 divisions is still a closed league don't you?

So it is not some club winning its way up a mythcial pyramid tut a licence being granted to an entity which would have a monopoly across Tasmania.

Is it right that Jesse Hogan has to uproot his life and start again in his home town, due to Kremlin like AFL draft policy and fundamentalist equalization policies.

In effect, the AFL can dictate where a draftee must live. Is that right?

 

[NoobPie]

Is it right that Jesse Hogan has to uproot his life and start again in his home town, due to Kremlin like AFL draft policy and fundamentalist equalization policies.

In effect, the AFL can dictate where a draftee must live. Is that right?

No it can't. You don't have to enter the draft!

To be an AFL footballer - and all the privileges and opportunities that come with it - you have to enter a national draft. The NFL and NBA, where "franchises" have almost universal private ownership, operate under the same system.

If you're good enough restricted free agency kicks in after 7 years. In practice, players nearly always have their "go home" wishes facilitated after their initial contract is up.

Your use of terms "Kremlin" and "fundamentalist" to describe equalisation measures does you no favours, btw. It just highlights you can't prosecute a cogent argument without resorting to glib and over the top rhetoric

 

[Tonatopia]

The AFL has a number of agenda's, either constitutional based on strategically announced.

It clearly has a focus (and certainly at times it can be argued to skewed a focus) on revenue maximisation like every other professional sporting body on the planet

With the exception of the GAA, I'd be shocked if any other wealthy sporting body on the planet directs a greater proportion of its revenues to game development and grass roots

It has a massive advantage of a complete absence of private ownership, which it exploits

One way it is exploiting this in pursuit of its stated "agenda" to be the dominant sport on Australia's eastern seaboard in ~50 years. This is as much about ensuring the game continues to grow and thrive more generally. The tree that isn't growing is a dead tree



Youre getting a bit weird now. This is almost Illuminati stuff

Every dominant professional sporting culture is networked in to other political, business and cultural institutions in the regions they are dominant.

Australian football in Melbourne is perhaps more so on account of the fact that the game was codified here 24 years after the city was founded (I hope I'm not being rude in speculating that is only a few years older than you?)



Equalisation is a fundamental principle of the AFL (as in the professional competition). It is self evidently effective to anyone who knows any history and has copious volumes of supporting theoretical and empirical research for anyone who knows any sports economics.

Carlton are the architects of their own destitution. I'd be surprised if a majority of Carlton fans didn't agree with that statement. Likewise nobody wants to go back to the cheque book driven league the VFL was when it was going broke back in the 80s.

Carlton can rebuild within the same system everyone else plays within. That system, thank f-ing christ, doesn't allow some third world kleptocrat to buy out a club and unleash inflationary pressures on everyone else. Your football department spend is kept within the same budget envelope (or atleast you pay a 100% tax on any excessive expenditure)



Well every club voted in favour of the expansion in the end (can't recall but a significant majority are required to for new clubs to be added) for a start

The decision was part of the strategic objective to be the dominant sport nationally. Some people don't agree with this objective (I would argue because of some form of myopia) but it is a clear objective that adding second teams to Sydney and SEQ - the first and third largest populations in Australia - was clearly aligned to.




You appear to be confusing "prudent" with "pure greed"



There is a case for Tasmania to have a team one day with its government as a pseudo-guarntor I suspect

I've got no idea how it fits in with your anti-closed league drum beating though. You are aware that a closed league with 2 or 3 divisions is still a closed league don't you?

So it is not some club winning its way up a mythcial pyramid tut a licence being granted to an entity which would have a monopoly across Tasmania.

I think the salary cap is required for obvious reasons, however, the equalization policies
of the draft are having horrendous effects on the culture of football, both for players and young supporters.

Why have a short sighted policy that forces young draftees to leave their family, friends and home to play in another state, then thru the grace of free will, allow them to return home, a while destroying young supporters hearts who idolize these footballers. Look at Jesse Hogan as an example. The current AFL draft policy is incredibly destabilizing on the game.

The draft breeds a culture that values a corporate strategic policy of growth at all costs, over the right to choose to live and play for the club you want to.

These policies are so arrogant, that they can only be justified by making the grandiose statement that the game has never been so popular. But has it?

Soccer is now the number 1 participation sport. Why?

The Wafl, sanfl and vfa are a shadow of their previous past. Why?

Yes, Sydney Swans was good, but what happened to Fitzroy. Surely it would be better to see them running around in div2 st Brunswick oval.

You believe, just like Bob Hawke or Paul Keating, that your socialist, almost Kremlin like authoritarian policies are good for the game. I beg to differ.

The VAFA is a great 'open' divisional competition. If we borrowed on those principals, albeit with a salary cap, how could it not be good for footy.

The AFL Kremlin has their head up their arse, much like yourself. A typical labou voting businessman, who has the right to tell others how and where to live, and who to love, based on shallow corporate policies which may be flawed.

If there is a steady exodus of footballers from Gold Coast, then what?
What if you have misread the market?

And in regard to the MCC trustees, dont think that they are just benign.they are more powerful than you would believe. Almost the Vatican of the AFL.

 

[Tonatopia]

Socialism has never been sustainable, and the current AFL socialist policies are only good, until the supporters revolt.

The next global financial crisis will test the future of the AFL in it's current form.

The draft is not sustainable.
GC is very risky.
Constant rule changes will breed discontent.

The game belongs to the people, not an AFL unelected technocracy.

 

[Gigantor]

GC will be tested hard. Even harder than GWS. Which player in their right mind would want to be forced to play there in comparison to their local clubs. Just look at the exodus. It is just starting.
Maybe GWS was a good bet. But an expensive one if it takes 20 years. I'm sure GFC2 will bust us before GWS can survive on it's own.

If 18 year old kids don't want to move to the Gold Coast to be a professional footballer, you're hardly going to get them to move to Hobart.

 

[madmug]

If 18 year old kids don't want to move to the Gold Coast to be a professional footballer, you're hardly going to get them to move to Hobart.

They don't have to so why say something that doesn't happen? Its a stupid comment really. Players don't seem to want to go to some other established clubs that DO actually exist. Like North & St Kilda. So maybe you can offer us some analysis rather than throw away lines. GC has more night clubs, so thats not it. It has more beaches, so thats not it. So whats your reasoned take on it?

GWS & GC are completely different animals. GC has a long history of failing sports clubs. GWS has an established number of solid professional clubs. Even the favoured local GC sport like RL has a terrible record. The reasons depend on where you live. GC blame everyone else. The facts show the GC people really do other things than sit in a stadium. The Cost benefit of either GWS & GC is a legitimate point of discussion.

Like it or not, Tassie has an AF pedigree. We already know Its much easier to attract & keep people if the environment is supportive.

Tassie would actually have a high percentage of supporters in the community relative to the other 2. Maybe like Geelong, a small city with a professional club, the team would be put on a pedestal & players get their ego's massaged regularly. Maybe analyse that for us.

 

[Gigantor]

They don't have to so why say something that doesn't happen? Its a stupid comment really. Players don't seem to want to go to some other established clubs that DO actually exist. Like North & St Kilda. So maybe you can offer us some analysis rather than throw away lines. GC has more night clubs, so thats not it. It has more beaches, so thats not it. So whats your reasoned take on it?

GWS & GC are completely different animals. GC has a long history of failing sports clubs. GWS has an established number of solid professional clubs. Even the favoured local GC sport like RL has a terrible record. The reasons depend on where you live. GC blame everyone else. The facts show the GC people really do other things than sit in a stadium. The Cost benefit of either GWS & GC is a legitimate point of discussion.

Like it or not, Tassie has an AF pedigree. We already know Its much easier to attract & keep people if the environment is supportive.

Tassie would actually have a high percentage of supporters in the community relative to the other 2. Maybe like Geelong, a small city with a professional club, the team would be put on a pedestal & players get their ego's massaged regularly. Maybe analyse that for us.

You can't expect 18 year olds to move to a city where every other kid is trying to move away as soon as they turn 18.

 

[Rabman]

I think the salary cap is required for obvious reasons, however, the equalization policies
of the draft are having horrendous effects on the culture of football, both for players and young supporters.

Why have a short sighted policy that forces young draftees to leave their family, friends and home to play in another state, then thru the grace of free will, allow them to return home, a while destroying young supporters hearts who idolize these footballers. Look at Jesse Hogan as an example. The current AFL draft policy is incredibly destabilizing on the game.

The draft breeds a culture that values a corporate strategic policy of growth at all costs, over the right to choose to live and play for the club you want to.

These policies are so arrogant, that they can only be justified by making the grandiose statement that the game has never been so popular. But has it?

Soccer is now the number 1 participation sport. Why?

The Wafl, sanfl and vfa are a shadow of their previous past. Why?

Yes, Sydney Swans was good, but what happened to Fitzroy. Surely it would be better to see them running around in div2 st Brunswick oval.

You believe, just like Bob Hawke or Paul Keating, that your socialist, almost Kremlin like authoritarian policies are good for the game. I beg to differ.

The VAFA is a great 'open' divisional competition. If we borrowed on those principals, albeit with a salary cap, how could it not be good for footy.

The AFL Kremlin has their head up their arse, much like yourself. A typical labou voting businessman, who has the right to tell others how and where to live, and who to love, based on shallow corporate policies which may be flawed.

If there is a steady exodus of footballers from Gold Coast, then what?
What if you have misread the market?

And in regard to the MCC trustees, dont think that they are just benign.they are more powerful than you would believe. Almost the Vatican of the AFL.

Have you seen the NRL and there constant Salary cap debacles year on year, they continue to have them because they don't have the draft. The salary cap and the draft work hand in hand and constant salary cap cheating would have more significant damage to the game.

Soccer been the number 1 participated sport in this country for over 20 years and nothing to show for it, no point having the most people playing the game if the pathways and development aren't there.

 

[NoobPie]

I think the salary cap is required for obvious reasons, however, the equalization policies
of the draft are having horrendous effects on the culture of football, both for players and young supporters.

No they are not. That is just another horrendous assertion on your behalf

Why have a short sighted policy that forces young draftees to leave their family, friends and home to play in another state, then thru the grace of free will, allow them to return home, a while destroying young supporters hearts who idolize these footballers. Look at Jesse Hogan as an example. The current AFL draft policy is incredibly destabilizing on the game.

Wrong again. The AFL has the lowest player movement of pretty much all professional sports. You are spouting nonsense. Again.

The draft breeds a culture that values a corporate strategic policy of growth at all costs, over the right to choose to live and play for the club you want to.

These policies are so arrogant, that they can only be justified by making the grandiose statement that the game has never been so popular. But has it?

Yes it is.

Soccer is now the number 1 participation sport. Why?

Soccer is the number 1 participation sport in the US as well. It is by far the number 1 participation sport in NSW and yet the Swans dwarf Sydney FC. It literally markets itself as a "safe and simple game for people of all ages". It is the football code that most immigrants are most familiar with then they come here

And despite all this, south of the Barrassi line, football still has substantially higher participation and nationally it is growing at a faster rate than soccer (which went backwards in the last Ausplay survey)

The Wafl, sanfl and vfa are a shadow of their previous past. Why?

Seriously? This is obvious isn't it? It is most easily attested in the following average attendances this year

West Coast 53,250
Adelaide 45,417
Fremantle 41,764
Port Adelaide 38,227

These professional football clubs are now part of a national competition. The WAFL and SANFL are now second tier semi professional city competitions instead of the first tier semi professional city competitions they once were

There is certainly arguments that we should do more to reinvigorate the second tier including whether having them double as a pseudo reserves competition for the AFL is the way to go. None of these arguments can be had without considering the health of the "third tier" which is thriving. And certainly, certainly none of them involve a moronic european soccer style open football pyramid with the AFL at the top (unless the state leagues are at the apex)

Yes, Sydney Swans was good, but what happened to Fitzroy. Surely it would be better to see them running around in div2 st Brunswick oval.

Fitroy ceased playing at Brun st oval in 1966. Fitzroy football club now plays in Premier C in the VAFA.

You believe, just like Bob Hawke or Paul Keating, that your socialist, almost Kremlin like authoritarian policies are good for the game. I beg to differ.

Hawke and Keating? You are beyond ridiculous. Your daddy was an idiot, you need to evolve passed spouting the nonsense you saw him yelling at the TV

The VAFA is a great 'open' divisional competition. If we borrowed on those principals, albeit with a salary cap, how could it not be good for footy.

Because you have made precisely zero arguments and provided zero evidence that it would be. You confuse crazed rhetoric with logic and and wild assertion with fact

The AFL Kremlin has their head up their arse, much like yourself. A typical labou voting businessman, who has the right to tell others how and where to live, and who to love, based on shallow corporate policies which may be flawed.

If there is a steady exodus of footballers from Gold Coast, then what?
What if you have misread the market?

You've completely misread the AFL business model. It is actually beyond you because you think at the level and subtlety of an angry Liberal voting newsagent

The AFL can sustain a millennia of current gold coast suns subsidy and, even in the face of onfield failure of both Qld clubs, there has been a particpation explosion over the last decade

http://www.goldcoastfc.com.au/news/2017-11-30/grassroots-afl-on-the-rise

And in regard to the MCC trustees, dont think that they are just benign.they are more powerful than you would believe. Almost the Vatican of the AFL.

Youre nuts

 

[BringBackTorps]

With the exception of the GAA, I'd be shocked if any other wealthy sporting body on the planet directs a greater proportion of its revenues to game development and grass roots

The AFL has allowed a system where AFL Club Football Dept. expenditures (now c. $180 - $200,000,000 pa in total) are approx. equal to, & often greater than, the wages paid to the players! How jolly! IMO, this is obscene; & demonstrates there are too many piggies going to the trough of the "football industry".

Aust. is incontrovertibly the most competitive sports' market in the world, & this "largesse" should be devoted more to the GR. Other sports have publicly announced on numerous occasions they plan to displace AF as Aust.'s biggest sport -& have VERY rich & powerful international connections that might facilitate this ascendancy.

I estimate that the juggernaut of continuous female GR AF growth- & also good GR male growth- around Aust. will require approx. $1 billion+ (today's $ value) to build/renovate new female change room facilities in the next 20 years. And build more ovals, with good lights (ie many ovals should have light strong enough to host the ever-increasing & unavoidable necessity of night matches). The no. of female umpires is also growing strongly, but umpire rooms do not have female toilets.

Are you aware of any other sporting competition in the world, where all the players are full time professionals, which has an analagous Sporting Department excessive expenditure (ie the Sport Dept. spends more on itself than it does on its players)?
If the AFL is unique, or very rare in this regard, it demonstrates the greed & self-serving nature of the AFL administration & the Clubs.

 

[NoobPie]

The AFL has allowed a system where AFL Club Football Dept. expenditures are approx. equal to, & sometimes greater, than the wages paid to the players! IMO, this is obscene; & demonstrates there are too many piggies going to the trough of the "football industry". Aust. is incontrovertibly the most competitive sports' market in the world, & this "largesse" should be devoted more to the GR.
(I estimate that the juggernaut of continuous female GR AF growth- & also good GR male growth- around Aust. will require approx. $1 billion + to build/renovate new female change room facilities in the next 20 years. And build more ovals, with lights. The no. of female umpires is also growing strongly, but umpire rooms do not have female toilets)

Are you aware of any other sporting competition in the world, where all the players are full time professionals, which has an analagous Sporting Department excessive expenditure (ie the Sport Dept. spends more on itself than it does on its players)?

I am reluctant to engage with you on this, BBT, because you seem to be impervious to external facts and arguments on certain subjects.

-The AFL have capped FD spend (now with a 100% tax on overspend) for several years. It has actually declined in real terms because the AFL haven't even allowed CPI. The games' revenues have increased by hundreds of millions in that time.

-This growth that the AFL have now got on top of was from clubs like Collingwood, Hawthorn and West Coast who get base distributions that effectively only cover their salary cap. This money was never available to the AFL to direct to grass roots. If it was to further reduce the cap, the only savings it would make would be to the handful of clubs (GWS, Suns, Lions, Saints) whom it funds the bulk of the full football department.

-You have never made any argument as to why the current levels of FD spend are "obscene" let-a-lone unsustainable. The cap covers all the coaches salaries, the medical / high performance department, recruitment and list management, footy ops among other things.

 

[BobbyMorri]

You can't expect 18 year olds to move to a city where every other kid is trying to move away as soon as they turn 18.

They move because of jobs and opportunities. An AFL player has a job but may lack big opportunities outside our local media. But they would perhaps have more opportunities than GWS/GC, due to the fact we are still an AFL state

Gold Coast is one of the fastest growing regions in Aus. Yet no AFL football wants to live there. I reason I reckon=is more down to club culture than city culture if you get my drift.

 

[Tonatopia]

If 18 year old kids don't want to move to the Gold Coast to be a professional footballer, you're hardly going to get them to move to Hobart.

Tasi kids will play for Tasmania. That's the whole point. A Tasmanian football club.

No it can't. You don't have to enter the draft!

To be an AFL footballer - and all the privileges and opportunities that come with it - you have to enter a national draft. The NFL and NBA, where "franchises" have almost universal private ownership, operate under the same system.

If you're good enough restricted free agency kicks in after 7 years. In practice, players nearly always have their "go home" wishes facilitated after their initial contract is up.

Your use of terms "Kremlin" and "fundamentalist" to describe equalisation measures does you no favours, btw. It just highlights you can't prosecute a cogent argument without resorting to glib and over the top rhetoric

Your a piece of work. Magpies, who would have thought. Mirror maybe?

Anyway, only an authoritarian could condone the forced relocation of a person from his home if he wants to play footy. If you cant see the that this is not right, then I cant help you. It is a classic socialist mindset, that is, a persons freedom and independence must be sacrificed for the greater good. Many wars have been fought on this policy.

You have not ready your history books. The opposing force to authoritarians always wins. Freedom always wins, and the AFL will be no different. So enjoy your controlled league and socialised corporate system while it lasts, because the next global financial crisis is going to wreak havoc on revenue, and seriously challenge the viability of GC.

If you did a bit of research, you would understand the ebbs and flows of our economy. We have had unprecedented prosperity over the last 25 years, true, but in times of economic hardship, one of the first luxuries to be cut from the personal budget is club membership. A close second would be cable TV (but we have not witnessed a recession since cable came into effect, so its just speculation). During recessions and even a depression, you would expect TV advertising revenue to collapse, reducing the broadcast rights for distribution to the clubs.

The AFL office are administrators only. The game belongs to the people, and en masse, the people did not ask for the crap that the AFL is serving up.

There has been a whole series of major errors:
- Waverley? Not even Hawthorn wants to train there.
- Rule changes, ie, 4 on the bench. This has resulted in the demise of the big bodied full forward who kicks 12 goals a game. This is rule related.
- The loss of Fitzroy is a disaster, due to the 1 division system.
- The introduction of the draft which denies the right of players to play for the team of their choice.
- The destruction of suburban football and leagues like SANFL and WAFL. Had a divisional system been introduced, several old historical WAFL and SANFL clubs may have chosen to enter the AFL (as did Port Adelaide), and try to take on the Melbourne clubs head on. This is consistent with organic free market policies.
- Creating Brisbane and playing them at Carrara. This was a disaster for many years. If it wasnt for Matthews and Fitzroy, who knows where Brisbane would have been? Again, this was a very risky strategy that the AFL orchestrated, instead of letting the Queensland football community work things out and enter our system slowly via a Div2 or 3 capacity.
- Gold Coast may not be viable.
- The Draft compromises basic human rights. It is absolutely authoritarian and has ruined many a footballer.
- The AFL entering political agenda like the equality movement. Dear God, they have no right to speak on behalf of the football community politically.
- The destruction of club development programs, ie the U19s.
- the creation of the U18 TAC competition, which is souless, and rips young guns from their local clubs. Ive had a personal experience of this via Eastern Rangers. It was horrible to be torn away from East Burwood as the only way to make the draft. What a destructive policy which teaches kids that personal success is far more important than team success. The TAC cup should be scrapped, and good young kids should be winning premierships for the local clubs with their mates and families. Again, this is an Authoritarian Corporate Socials Policy. It opposes decency.
- The restrictive policy of not giving access to other clubs, cities and states to enter our national competition. Imagine a Darwin or Alice Springs (mostly aboriginal side). It would be mind blowing. And it might just be sponsored by Ziggy Forrester or another wealthy mining tycoon. Who knows? But we will never know with the current restrictive AFL policy.
- The legislatitve policy of forcing clubs to wear away strips. This exposes the shallow corporate policies of the AFL. Why interfere? Also why legislate against woolen jumpers? It worked for 100 years, and help sustain a local agricultural and textiles industry.
- Exploration of the Chinese market. Well, another highlight of the ruthless expansionist policies.
- Removing the reserves competition. It was great to spend a day at the footy, watching at least 2 quarters of the reserves before the big game. But we cant have that anymore, although it worked for 100 years before?
- Over regulation of the game via umpiring. We used to have 1 umpire. Now they want 4 + 1 on the bench? Isnt the grand final great, when the umpires just put their whistles away. Thats how it should be. Why did 1 umpire work for 100 years? Is the game over regulated now?
- Television decisions. Progressive policy like equality. We are made to believe we need it, but we didnt have it for 100 years and things worked out fine.
- No more state of origin. Lets go to Ireland instead. Another aggressive expansionist policy.

I have a vision where Australian Football is regulated by a salary cap, but apart from that, is free, open, democratic and tribal.

I think soccer is boring, but it seems the EPL structure, is kicking arse over the NFL.
I think the AFL has been blindsided by American sports culture and will likely suffer the same fate.

 

[madmug]

You can't expect 18 year olds to move to a city where every other kid is trying to move away as soon as they turn 18.

I thought you'd have sensible point to make. Cheap ignorant shots are easy. I mean how many people of whatever age really want to live in WS. Maybe you could discuss that with yourself?

Pity, just another clueless troll.

 

[Gigantor]

I thought you'd have sensible point to make. Cheap ignorant shots are easy. I mean how many people of whatever age really want to live in WS. Maybe you could discuss that with yourself?

Pity, just another clueless troll.

It is a sensible point, and it is not a cheap shot.

I'm not the first to say it and I won't be the last.

Of a list of 40, a Tassie team would be lucky to fill 10 spots with local players, meaning 30 players have to move to Tassie. Many will do it without a problem, but it would still be a pretty tough sell to attract 30+ players there, especially teenagers.

So, all in all, even if it was all commercially feasible, this would be the single biggest issue facing a Tassie club, and why a fly-in-fly-out model is much more likely than a permanent Tassie team.

 

[NoobPie]

I get it....you're parodying a RWNJ applying his confused thinking to the AFL?

Your a piece of work. Magpies, who would have thought. Mirror maybe?

Anyway, only an authoritarian could condone the forced relocation of a person from his home if he wants to play footy. If you cant see the that this is not right, then I cant help you. It is a classic socialist mindset, that is, a persons freedom and independence must be sacrificed for the greater good. Many wars have been fought on this policy.

You have not ready your history books. The opposing force to authoritarians always wins. Freedom always wins, and the AFL will be no different. So enjoy your controlled league and socialised corporate system while it lasts, because the next global financial crisis is going to wreak havoc on revenue, and seriously challenge the viability of GC.

If you did a bit of research, you would understand the ebbs and flows of our economy. We have had unprecedented prosperity over the last 25 years, true, but in times of economic hardship, one of the first luxuries to be cut from the personal budget is club membership. A close second would be cable TV (but we have not witnessed a recession since cable came into effect, so its just speculation). During recessions and even a depression, you would expect TV advertising revenue to collapse, reducing the broadcast rights for distribution to the clubs.

The AFL office are administrators only. The game belongs to the people, and en masse, the people did not ask for the crap that the AFL is serving up.

There has been a whole series of major errors:
- Waverley? Not even Hawthorn wants to train there.
- Rule changes, ie, 4 on the bench. This has resulted in the demise of the big bodied full forward who kicks 12 goals a game. This is rule related.
- The loss of Fitzroy is a disaster, due to the 1 division system.
- The introduction of the draft which denies the right of players to play for the team of their choice.
- The destruction of suburban football and leagues like SANFL and WAFL. Had a divisional system been introduced, several old historical WAFL and SANFL clubs may have chosen to enter the AFL (as did Port Adelaide), and try to take on the Melbourne clubs head on. This is consistent with organic free market policies.
- Creating Brisbane and playing them at Carrara. This was a disaster for many years. If it wasnt for Matthews and Fitzroy, who knows where Brisbane would have been? Again, this was a very risky strategy that the AFL orchestrated, instead of letting the Queensland football community work things out and enter our system slowly via a Div2 or 3 capacity.
- Gold Coast may not be viable.
- The Draft compromises basic human rights. It is absolutely authoritarian and has ruined many a footballer.
- The AFL entering political agenda like the equality movement. Dear God, they have no right to speak on behalf of the football community politically.
- The destruction of club development programs, ie the U19s.
- the creation of the U18 TAC competition, which is souless, and rips young guns from their local clubs. Ive had a personal experience of this via Eastern Rangers. It was horrible to be torn away from East Burwood as the only way to make the draft. What a destructive policy which teaches kids that personal success is far more important than team success. The TAC cup should be scrapped, and good young kids should be winning premierships for the local clubs with their mates and families. Again, this is an Authoritarian Corporate Socials Policy. It opposes decency.
- The restrictive policy of not giving access to other clubs, cities and states to enter our national competition. Imagine a Darwin or Alice Springs (mostly aboriginal side). It would be mind blowing. And it might just be sponsored by Ziggy Forrester or another wealthy mining tycoon. Who knows? But we will never know with the current restrictive AFL policy.

- The legislatitve policy of forcing clubs to wear away strips. This exposes the shallow corporate policies of the AFL. Why interfere? Also why legislate against woolen jumpers? It worked for 100 years, and help sustain a local agricultural and textiles industry.
- Exploration of the Chinese market. Well, another highlight of the ruthless expansionist policies.
- Removing the reserves competition. It was great to spend a day at the footy, watching at least 2 quarters of the reserves before the big game. But we cant have that anymore, although it worked for 100 years before?
- Over regulation of the game via umpiring. We used to have 1 umpire. Now they want 4 + 1 on the bench? Isnt the grand final great, when the umpires just put their whistles away. Thats how it should be. Why did 1 umpire work for 100 years? Is the game over regulated now?
- Television decisions. Progressive policy like equality. We are made to believe we need it, but we didnt have it for 100 years and things worked out fine.
- No more state of origin. Lets go to Ireland instead. Another aggressive expansionist policy.

I have a vision where Australian Football is regulated by a salary cap, but apart from that, is free, open, democratic and tribal.

Aaaah satire. Brilliant

 

[madmug]

It is a sensible point, and it is not a cheap shot.

I'm not the first to say it and I won't be the last.

Of a list of 40, a Tassie team would be lucky to fill 10 spots with local players, meaning 30 players have to move to Tassie. Many will do it without a problem, but it would still be a pretty tough sell to attract 30+ players there, especially teenagers.

So, all in all, even if it was all commercially feasible, this would be the single biggest issue facing a Tassie club, and why a fly-in-fly-out model is much more likely than a permanent Tassie team.

You can say what you like. But what evidence could you possibly offer to support that opinion?. We don't have a club. Mind you cricketers come & go, like in every state. Its about opportunity & the right club culture.

People leave for many reasons. They come here too. At the moment, that is the case. Employment at Head office in Melbourne/Sydney has always occured. Young players go to get a chance to get noticed for the draft. Before the AFL we had a lot of players coming here to play in the TFL. The AFL has ended that.

So why does Geelong attract players? Because its a footy environment in a footy community. Players will come & if the environment is supportive, they'll be fine. Given a reasonable chance to develop local players, who really have been left off the map by the AFL for years, the talent pool would grow as well.

FIFO is becoming more on the nose here. Maybe we are sick of money hungry users. A lot of people are. It'll continue to become an embarrassment to the AFL.

 

[Gigantor]

Geelong is only 66km from Footscray, so you'd have to say that being so close sort of helps, and a lot of the players looking to go to Geelong the last few years are from Geelong and surrounds (at least two more will return this off-season).

 

[madmug]

Geelong is only 66km from Footscray, so you'd have to say that being so close sort of helps, and a lot of the players looking to go to Geelong the last few years are from Geelong and surrounds (at least two more will return this off-season).

So players are attracted to Geelong by Footscray? What are you actually trying to say.?

If Tassie had a team & put a lot more effort into football development than the AFL have managed, we'd get an increase in draft prospects. At least invest as much per head as the AFL spend in GC & GWS areas & we'd get a improvement in player quality & numbers.

Just recently the Tas u18's beat Sydney academy. The Academy team was full of ex AFL players as coaching staff & has a bigger budget than our TSL competition. Thats a sign of a footy culturenhere, but better resources would improve the situation. No doubt.

 

[Tonatopia]

If 18 year old kids don't want to move to the Gold Coast to be a professional footballer, you're hardly going to get them to move to Hobart.

Tasi kids will play for Tasmania. That's the whole point. A Tasmanian football club.

That's what footy is about, playing for the club you love, or with your mates, or for yourlip

It is a sensible point, and it is not a cheap shot.

I'm not the first to say it and I won't be the last.

Of a list of 40, a Tassie team would be lucky to fill 10 spots with local players, meaning 30 players have to move to Tassie. Many will do it without a problem, but it would still be a pretty tough sell to attract 30+ players there, especially teenagers.

So, all in all, even if it was all commercially feasible, this would be the single biggest issue facing a Tassie club, and why a fly-in-fly-out model is much more likely than a permanent Tassie team.

If you are correct, then the level of Tasi football would be division 2. Nothing wrong with that. It is what it is. But at least they are in the game.

 

[madmug]

Tasi kids will play for Tasmania. That's the whole point. A Tasmanian football club.

That's what footy is about, playing for the club you love, or with your mates, or for yourlip


If you are correct, then the level of Tasi football would be division 2. Nothing wrong with that. It is what it is. But at least they are in the game.

Is their any point of divisions, if you cant get to the AFL.?

AFL clubs are heavily subsidised & get draft picks. How would that work with divisions?

 

[Gigantor]

If you are correct, then the level of Tasi football would be division 2. Nothing wrong with that. It is what it is. But at least they are in the game.

Forget about a Division 2. We all know that ain't ever going to happen, it's just not on anyone's radar, least of all, the commission.

When they had the Foxtel Cup, there was minimal interest, even Central Districts didn't bother taking part.

No one is interested in watching Launceston vs Lavington.