Loaded Draw!!!

[MarkT]

Originally posted by Crow54
Take away the Crows, the Power and the Eagles and see where your pathetic Vic teams would end up.

I think most of the posts re getting rid of non Vic. teams are in response to non Vic. supporters saying get rid of Vic. clubs.

I can say 1 thing, however. The propoganda about WCE and Crows "saving" the comp. was just that. The argument went along the lines that clubs were broke and the licence fees saved them. That is simply not true. The clubs were broke but they still are. The licence fee and increased revenue were/are offset by increased operating costs due to travel and increased competition for quality players pushing paymen ts up. I believe the draft consessions have also contributed - eg St.Kilda & Freemantles offers to uncontracted players (within their rights), as has the AFL's growth as an organisation and absorber of revenue. The economics were never validly argued. Indeed ask Fitzroy how much the expansion helped the existing clubs.

That does not mean the competition is not better for the expansion and it does not mean it was not in the "best interests of football" to go national. It just means the arguments were false and manipulated to achive an agenda that was not popular at the time.

To take away clubs now would not help anything unless it was shown the club was not viable and that has nothing to do with location.

The VFL, SANFL and WAFL were great competitions but they are now shadows of their former selves. They are now second rate feeder comp's and that is it. It is not too late to go back but it is too late get back what has been lost. The national comp is here to stay. How it should be structured is another matter.

I only hope the eceonomic arguments are better thought through, explained and debated if any changes are made. The problem is that the football media would not have a clue whether what they are told is right and the financial media are not interested.

 

[Winston Wolf]

The answer is so obvious ......

If you finish in the Top 8, you play the other teams in the Top 8 TWICE next season, and the Bottom 8 ONCE....Vice-Versa if you finish in the Bottom 8.

It's as fair (and logical) as you can get it without playing each team twice (which will never happen)....

A pity all the so called "wise-heads" in the AFL can't work their way out of a paper bag......it doesnt take a Rocket Science degree to figure this out....

But you already know the answer.....its a "$$$ business $$$" 1st........and football is a distant 2nd

 

[Portia]

That seems pretty boneheaded.

So the reward for finishing 8th as opposed to 9th is that you get to play 7 teams that are better than you are instead of 7 that are worse?

If you don't reckon you'll make the premiership, might as well go for 9th. Not only better draft picks, but also a better draw!

 

[Pessimistic]

Originally posted by Porthos
That seems pretty boneheaded.

So the reward for finishing 8th as opposed to 9th is that you get to play 7 teams that are better than you are instead of 7 that are worse?

If you don't reckon you'll make the premiership, might as well go for 9th. Not only better draft picks, but also a better draw!

Some teams would be good at that...

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by Winston Wolf
If you finish in the Top 8, you play the other teams in the Top 8 TWICE next season, and the Bottom 8 ONCE....Vice-Versa if you finish in the Bottom 8.
But you already know the answer.....its a "$$$ business $$$" 1st........and football is a distant 2nd

I don't mind that system if you accept that evening the comp., or at least the results, is desired (I don't BTW).

The problem, as you have aluded to is money. The money aspect of ensuring there are always 2 local derby's in SA & WA and the big 3 or 4 in Vic. clash twice. As I keep saying, this is good for cash flow and game promotion and should not be changed. without the $, there is no comp. - end of story.

Just a point on these clashes - the SA & WA clubs benefit greately from the local derby's in terms of money and promotion. It is a very important issue for more than the "Big Three" as some keep suggesting.

 

[Portia]

The difference between the Victorian blockbusters and the interstate ones is that Adelaide vs Port serves two functions.

Sure, they make money, but they also mean 12 games at Football Park....less travelling. By this sort of event, its the only way we can come close to evening the disadvantage that travelling every second week has, compared to Victorian rivals who have around 18 games in Victoria every year.

Also, unlike the Essendon/Carlton/Collingwood clashes....no other clubs would gain any financial benefit from Port or Adelaide playing them as a home game...if anything, it seems that its something to complain about if it happens! (See Melbourne's whinge re: hosting Port)

Sure it makes money, and thats good, but I don't see how its hurting any other club's income.

 

[Crow54]

Mark T....I don't believe the argument that the non-Victorian teams didn't prop up the Vic. teams financially. They DID, at least for a while. Mismanagement and incompetence and over proliferation of clubs in a small area has reduced some of these teams to the state they were in when the non-Vic teams came to the rescue.

And I don't believe the derbies between the Crows and the Power are any more financially beneficial to the Crows as nearly all the Crows games are sellouts regardless of who they play.

 

[MarkT]

The local Derby's help financially more from a sponsorship point of view than gate takings. The functions etc surrounding these games and the increased publicity provide great short term and long term benefits. If the grounds held more people I'm sure the crowds would be bigger for these games than averages for others but that is academic because the ground capacity is fixed.

Porthos, I never said it hurts any other club. I believe these games are very improtant for all the reasons you stated and all the others that I have said in the for case for blockbusters. I am saying that these games, like the Vic ones are vital for the comp.

Crows54, I agree that the licence fee was a financial bonanza for existing clubs (only confined to Vic. clubs at first instance). What I was getting at was the result today is that they are all back where they started. Rather than being any kind of saviour, the cash was spent and in the mantime, the operating costs went up substantially - for the reasons I mentioned in the earlier post.

I was not saying, btw, that the non Victorian clubs were a bad move, just that the arguments were incorrect through a mixture of misguided logic and deliberate misinformation.

 

[stoisle]

Originally posted by Winston Wolf
The answer is so obvious ......

If you finish in the Top 8, you play the other teams in the Top 8 TWICE next season, and the Bottom 8 ONCE....Vice-Versa if you finish in the Bottom 8.

Not a bad idea, but that would mean the AFL would lose the blockbusters because Collingwood would be playing Essendon, Richmond and Carlton once.