Expansion Proposals for a Truly National AFL

[Kwality]

Funny you bring up Rangers, who died about 8 years ago, replaced by a 'fake mega club' also called Rangers and were just as fanatically followed as the previous club. Simply because they were called Rangers.

Seems Scottish soccer fans simply follow a name, not a club.

megadeth86 again.

I can understand some criticising the Eagles as 'plastic' rather than analysing their own club model, e.g how pathetic to have potential members paying to join the queue for membership, how bad it is that the plastic clubs support local footy ($140 mil + to date), have visiting club coaches complaining about the passion of the fans, too noisy at the footy, precious!
When those slinging off have anything to offer, WA footy will listen, meanwhile it will 'put its money where its mouth is ' leaving those in the cheap seats to make their own arrangements. I

 

[Blackas87]

No idea, I was just using the terminology of the poster.



Their club? It was a completely new entity. The only continuity was through the name.

Are they any different to any sports fans in the world? No. That was my point.

New business, same club.

Rangers FC became a public limited company in 2000 that went into administration in 2012.

Administrators sold the business assets to a new company including the club, stadium and training ground.

Same fans turn up to the same stadium supporting their club

 

[Rob]

New business, same club.

Rangers FC became a public limited company in 2000 that went into administration in 2012.

Administrators sold the business assets to a new company including the club, stadium and training ground.

Same fans turn up to the same stadium supporting their club

How can you sell "a club"? The club is the entity that folded.

I'm certainly not bagging out Rangers fans, just saying that people aren't attached to the club per se, they're attached to the identity that the club brings. If a new club comes along that gives them that identity then they'll follow that.

 

[Blackas87]

How can you sell "a club"? The club is the entity that folded.

I'm certainly not bagging out Rangers fans, just saying that people aren't attached to the club per se, they're attached to the identity that the club brings. If a new club comes along that gives them that identity then they'll follow that.

Bought all their intellectual property such as the logo, colours ect.. that were all trademarked.

What doesn’t exist from pre 2012 is the old operating company.

 

[Rob]

Bought all their intellectual property such as the logo, colours ect.. that were all trademarked.

What doesn’t exist from pre 2012 is the old operating company.

I know what happened, but bottom line is that it's a new club.

 

[Kwality]

Bought all their intellectual property such as the logo, colours ect.. that were all trademarked.

What doesn’t exist from pre 2012 is the old operating company.

All AFL clubs are owned by Company structures.

 

[Blackas87]

I know what happened, but bottom line is that it's a new club.

Same group of people, gathering at the same location for the same common purpose. Same club.

 

[Blackas87]

All AFL clubs are owned by Company structures.

If they are sold are they a different club?

 

[Tonatopia]

After a decade of football, GWS and GC are failing to fill their boutique stadiums to even 1/4 capacity.

And the AFL thinks they can keep those clubs on an equal keel to Superclubs like WCE and Richmond.

 

[Kwality]

After a decade of football, GWS and GC are falling to fill their boutique stadiums to even 1/4 capacity.

And the AFL thinks they can keep those clubs on an equal keel to Superclubs like WCE and Richmond.

Such is the cost of entering someone else's market when you want/need to be NATIONAL. Whatever your definition.

 

[big_e]

All AFL clubs are owned by Company structures.

If they are sold are they a different club?

AFL clubs are companies limited by guarantee, which is a form of not for profit entity, typically used by NFPs which have outgrown the incorporated association structure.

They can't issue dividends and can't issue shares, and membership can't be bought and sold.

In some cases the members are ordinary people, in other cases the only member is the AFL, while WCE and Fremantle's only member is the WA Football Commission.

So to answer the question, you can't really sell an AFL club. The licence can be transferred to a different entity, which would by definition make it a different club.

 

[Blackas87]

AFL clubs are companies limited by guarantee, which is a form of not for profit entity, typically used by NFPs which have outgrown the incorporated association structure.

They can't issue dividends and can't issue shares, and membership can't be bought and sold.

In some cases the members are ordinary people, in other cases the only member is the AFL, while WCE and Fremantle's only member is the WA Football Commission.

So to answer the question, you can't really sell an AFL club. The licence can be transferred to a different entity, which would by definition make it a different club.

Didn’t North Melbourne become a shareholder owned club in 1987 selling $3million shares at $1 each?

 

[Tonatopia]

Such is the cost of entering someone else's market when you want/need to be NATIONAL. Whatever your definition.

Youre missing the point.

In order for our current structure to work, the AFL must keep subsidising GC and GWS to try and keep them on an equal keel with the established clubs. The AFL can only do this by restricting the capabilities of the bigger clubs, and artificially boosting the capacity of the fledglings.

The question is,
1. How long can this be sustained, and
2. Are the restrictions imposed on the power clubs, becoming detrimental to the growth of our game?

 

[The_Wookie]

Youre missing the point.

In order for our current structure to work, the AFL must keep subsidising GC and GWS to try and keep them on an equal keel with the established clubs. The AFL can only do this by restricting the capabilities of the bigger clubs, and artificially boosting the capacity of the fledglings.

The question is,
1. How long can this be sustained, and
2. Are the restrictions imposed on the power clubs, becoming detrimental to the growth of our game?

This is the fun part. You seem to think - despite all evidence to the contrary - that allowing the power clubs free rein is a good thing and not at all detrimental to a) the standard of competition or b) the clubs below them.

 

[Tonatopia]

This is the fun part. You seem to think - despite all evidence to the contrary - that allowing the power clubs free rein is a good thing and not at all detrimental to a) the standard of competition or b) the clubs below them.

The dominance of EPL in global TV audience and revenue tends to suggest that removing restraints on growth is a superior model.

The NFL in contrast, is trending backward.

 

[Kwality]

Youre missing the point.

In order for our current structure to work, the AFL must keep subsidising GC and GWS to try and keep them on an equal keel with the established clubs. The AFL can only do this by restricting the capabilities of the bigger clubs, and artificially boosting the capacity of the fledglings.

The question is,
1. How long can this be sustained, and
2. Are the restrictions imposed on the power clubs, becoming detrimental to the growth of our game?

That there is a cost to entering a new market is nothing new, when its NRL heartland of course it wont be easy. The Swans took 20 years to win a flag IF thats the measure.

The 'big' clubs are restricted, its not the VFL of old where Carlton triumphed with a bag of gold - see their success in the national comp.
Personally I think the annual composition of the player pool by State is the best indicator of current development of the game at the highest level.

If the game were to be limited by dollars at the top end, many of our cricket/footballers (& other sports) would not take the safe route of the AFL pathway.

Origin is a creature of footy before the national comp. People of all sports want to see the best compete, relegation will fail to provide that environment in my opinion.

 

[Kwality]

The dominance of EPL in global TV audience and revenue tends to suggest that removing restraints on growth is a superior model.

The NFL in contrast, is trending backward.

A picture at a point of time has relevance. Its only weeks since European soccer was in the headlines.

 

[Tonatopia]

A picture at a point of time has relevance. Its only weeks since European soccer was in the headlines.

We are in the process of seeing the development and implementation of a European League, and I'm sure that there would be a pathway for promotion and relegation for superclubs, either on the rise or decline, aka, Manchester City.

Money talks, and bs walks.

 

[The_Wookie]

We are in the process of seeing the development and implementation of a European League, and I'm sure that there would be a pathway for promotion and relegation for superclubs, either on the rise or decline, aka, Manchester City.

Money talks, and bs walks.

Have you even looked at this super league proposal lol. It literally guarantees the top teams their places.

 

[Tonatopia]

Have you even looked at this super league proposal lol. It literally guarantees the top teams their places.

Success is never guaranteed.
Look at Leicester City. Their billionaire owner died in a helicopter crash, and after winning the EPL title in 2016, are now sitting 9th.

What would happen to Manchester City if the UAE collapses?

The rise and fall of clubs is natural, and artificial restraints on either success or demise, should not be used to interrupt the natural progression.

The fact that we are restricting the growth of our big clubs to match them against artificial club's with little support and following, will only create tension and I don't think it is sustainable.

This is why guys like Brendan Gale can see the bigger picture.

 

[big_e]

Didn’t North Melbourne become a shareholder owned club in 1987 selling $3million shares at $1 each?

Different laws back then.

 

[The_Wookie]

Success is never guaranteed.
Look at Leicester City. Their billionaire owner died in a helicopter crash, and after winning the EPL title in 2016, are now sitting 9th.

Has what to do with you citing super league as an example.

The fact that we are restricting the growth of our big clubs to match them against artificial club's with little support and following, will only create tension and I don't think it is sustainable.

West Coast is an artificial club. So is Adelaide, and Fremantle. Each one of these created entities where the members have little or no power. In fact every club brought into the league since 1925 has been an artificial club with the sole exception of Port Adelaide, and for some reason, Brisbane - albeit not for some years after they were bought into the league.

This is why guys like Brendan Gale can see the bigger picture.

Everyone can see the bigger picture when they are on the outside of the operation. Now all Brendon Gale has to do is convince half a dozen other clubs or the Commission that his ideas have any merit.

 

[RedV3x]

The question is,

How long would it be if the top AFL clubs were left unrestrained before the AFL turned into the Man U show of the EPL.


ClubTitlesWinning seasons
Manchester United13 1992–93, 1993–94, 1995–96, 1996–97, 1998–99, 1999–2000, 2000–01, 2002–03, 2006–07, 2007–08, 2008–09, 2010–11, 2012–13
Chelsea5 2004–05, 2005–06, 2009–10, 2014–15, 2016–17
Manchester City5 2011–12, 2013–14, 2017–18, 2018–19, 2020–21
Arsenal3 1997–98, 2001–02, 2003–04
Blackburn Rovers1 1994–95
Leicester City1 2015–16
Liverpool1 2019–20

and you find this is the model we should aspire to ?

 

[The_Wookie]

The dominance of EPL in global TV audience and revenue tends to suggest that removing restraints on growth is a superior model.

The NFL in contrast, is trending backward.

Its worth noting that the NFL deal recently signed in at US10 billion PER YEAR, and a US100 billion over 10 years through 2033. The EPL signed a deal in March for US6.6 billion over 3 years, essentially rolling over its previous deal which WAS 10% down on the previous deal.

The EPL doesnt come close to dominating in revenue either. Total revenue for the EPL clubs came in at US5.9 billion last year - the NFL teams DROPPED US4 billion last year and still turned over US12 billion in revenue. Both leagues down in revenue for 2020.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

The dominance of EPL in global TV audience and revenue tends to suggest that removing restraints on growth is a superior model.

The NFL in contrast, is trending backward.

TV Audience is just one thing lol. NFL does a much, much, much better job of monetising local fans through successfully marketing the seats and making a killing selling things like merchandise, food and drink in games.

Almost every team has a season ticket waiting list, season tickets to for about $100 per game for the worst seats (even bad teams with no waiting list still charge $50 per game for their worst seats like the Cleveland Browns), more than half the seats in a typical stadium are considered "good" seats where they charge several hundred per game and the scale up in cost to buy corporate hospitality tickets is immense.

They fought the player's union tooth and nail but they're adding an extra game as part of the broadcast deal which is worth an immense amount extra.

They might not get a massive international TV deal like the EPL but you multiply the fact that they charge hundreds of dollars for an average seat in bigger stadiums across 10 more teams (granted in less games), their revenue compared to an EPL team like Burnley only having 10-15k season ticket holders who get charged an average of £30 per game is immense.