Relocation and Mergers rumoured to be back in the news!!!

Remove this Banner Ad

O.k. So you get rid of say 4 clubs. Doesn't matter who they are. You keep the big clubs. They get the usual monopoly on big games, Fri. / Sat. nights. They win flag after flag. The Qld. / N S.W. have some bad years > struggle and people lose interest. You've dropped off all those 4 clubs supporters whose team has died and take no interest in the game anymore. Gate revenue drops. T. V. viewers drop. Game taken over by the corporate world ( as if it hasn't already > see Gil )

The game you love and grew up with withers. Rule changes. 14 a side.15min quarters. 28 game season. Grand Final played in New York to " grow " the game.

Yeh. Let's get rid of clubs.
 
Hojuman said:
O.k. So you get rid of say 4 clubs. Doesn't matter who they are. You keep the big clubs. They get the usual monopoly on big games, Fri. / Sat. nights. They win flag after flag. The Qld. / N S.W. have some bad years > struggle and people lose interest. You've dropped off all those 4 clubs supporters whose team has died and take no interest in the game anymore. Gate revenue drops. T. V. viewers drop. Game taken over by the corporate world ( as if it hasn't already > see Gil )

The game you love and grew up with withers. Rule changes. 14 a side.15min quarters. 28 game season. Grand Final played in New York to " grow " the game.

Yeh. Let's get rid of clubs.
Click to expand...
We don't necessarily need to get rid of clubs. We just need North to go to Tassie and become Hobart Kangaroos. It would then be a truly national game and also save North from Liquidation.
 
I think it may go the other way.
Reduce players on field and list size, keep quarters shorter and increase amount of teams.

I think clubs can get more value outve first/second year players without having to spend a season or two building their fitness base.
As it is the jump has been too big from U18 to elite level.
You dont really get that in other professional sports.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

NeXus Nick said:
We don't necessarily need to get rid of clubs. We just need North to go to Tassie and become Hobart Kangaroos. It would then be a truly national game and also save North from Liquidation.
Click to expand...


Why would it save " us " from liquidation ?

The old chesnut about North having huge debt and no money.
 
Hojuman said:
Why would it save " us " from liquidation ?

The old chesnut about North having huge debt and no money.
Click to expand...
Lol our actual debt would be about the equivalent of the interest payable on St Kilda debt.

Good thing they've got all those recent flags to show for it.
 
NeXus Nick said:
We don't necessarily need to get rid of clubs. We just need North to go to Tassie and become Hobart Kangaroos. It would then be a truly national game and also save North from Liquidation.
Click to expand...

Why would Tasmania embrace North Melbourne, they haven't yet even on a part time basis, look at the crowd figures over the last few years.
Hawthorn pull a better crowd in Launceston than the Kangaroos do in Hobart.
 
Hojuman said:
O.k. So you get rid of say 4 clubs. Doesn't matter who they are. You keep the big clubs. They get the usual monopoly on big games, Fri. / Sat. nights. They win flag after flag. The Qld. / N S.W. have some bad years > struggle and people lose interest. You've dropped off all those 4 clubs supporters whose team has died and take no interest in the game anymore. Gate revenue drops. T. V. viewers drop. Game taken over by the corporate world ( as if it hasn't already > see Gil )

The game you love and grew up with withers. Rule changes. 14 a side.15min quarters. 28 game season. Grand Final played in New York to " grow " the game.

Yeh. Let's get rid of clubs.
Click to expand...
They wouldn't get rid of clubs, they would merge them.

Melbourne/North = Melbourne Kangaroos etc
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Hojuman said:
O.k. So you get rid of say 4 clubs. Doesn't matter who they are. You keep the big clubs. They get the usual monopoly on big games, Fri. / Sat. nights.
Click to expand...
Let me start by saying I don't want to get rid of any clubs, I prefer to keep them all. I also see why fans of the smaller Melbourne clubs would be greatly annoyed by a merger and feel a loss of identity.

It's just that you've hit upon a fundamental issue, the big Melbourne clubs get advantages with primetime scheduling. And they (and the Demons I suppose) get advantages with special event games and use of the MCG for home games. I wonder whether there's an advantage to be gained by the smaller clubs if they merge, because then they'd have the clout to match it with the big clubs. Add North and St Kilda's membership tallies together and it's equal to Collingwood's.

Of course there'd be some drop-off from fans who are disaffected, but even if that's as high as 20% of the members of each club, a merged entity still qualifies as a big club, would be able to demand more primetime matchups and kills off any talk of relocation for good. Is there any appeal to it, or is it just an unalloyed disaster?
 
Taylor said:
They wouldn't get rid of clubs, they would merge them.

Melbourne/North = Melbourne Kangaroos etc
Click to expand...

IF the clubs, all the clubs voted on the proposal (3/4 majority vote) - then and only then would it get looked at.

The reason why there is no or near no noise on mergers / folds / relocations is because the clubs as well as the league know that it would cost too much fan base.
 
Carringbush2010 said:
IF the clubs, all the clubs voted on the proposal (3/4 majority vote) - then and only then would it get looked at.

The reason why there is no or near no noise on mergers / folds / relocations is because the clubs as well as the league know that it would cost too much fan base.
Click to expand...
Do you think the AFL cutting off clubs and requiring them to stand on their own feet, even slightly more than now, leading to the clubs having to close their own doors would be a preferred course of action?

That might motivate more supporters to financially support their clubs
 
Taylor said:
Do you think the AFL cutting off clubs and requiring them to stand on their own feet, even slightly more than now, leading to the clubs having to close their own doors would be a preferred course of action?

That might motivate more supporters to financially support their clubs
Click to expand...



AFL already cuts off clubs. Have you seen the draw in a normal season ? Who gets all the good time slots and big days ? North been fighting for 25 years for Good Friday and then you hear doubt from the AFL about us keeping it going forward.
 
I think merging teams is fraught with danger, more likely you alienate fans from both teams and lose more than if you just cut one. If you're going to get rid of a team, just cut it loose and let it play in the VFL or whatever relevant state league that applies. I understand it's an emotional topic for fans, no one wants to lose their club, but ultimately in the interest of a national competition, I think 18 teams is too many. Surely Saints, North, Gold Coast, maybe Bulldogs most at risk. They will never lose Melbourne because you can't have a competition without a Melbourne team in it.
 
Carringbush2010 said:
IF the clubs, all the clubs voted on the proposal (3/4 majority vote) - then and only then would it get looked at.

The reason why there is no or near no noise on mergers / folds / relocations is because the clubs as well as the league know that it would cost too much fan base.
Click to expand...

Fitzroy is the example and it was no great example of how an AFL 'merger' should be carried out. For one thing it wasn't even a merger.

In 1998 (two years after their removal from the AFL) the Fitzroy Football Club commissioned a survey of their known members (when they were in the AFL) and from that concluded only 27% of Fitzroy supporters were following the Brisbane Lions.

Other later estimations have been
  • at least 40 percent of Fitzroy supporters were lost to AFL football. Assuming that Fitzroy's support base was about 200,000 (as estimated by polling by Roy Morgan) then we can assume about 80,000 no longer actively supported / lost interest in AFL football.
  • between 5-10 percent of Fitzroy supporters now follow another code or lower levels of Australian Rules football as their primary football experience. (about 10,000-20,000)
  • no more than 5 percent of Fitzroy supporters now follow another AFL side, including a few hundred that went across to North Melbourne. (No more than 10,000). This does not necessarily mean taking out a AFL club membership of their new club. Maybe 800 Fitzroy members / supporters took out a membership of North Melbourne in the years following 1996.
  • over 40 percent of Fitzroy people support / follow the Brisbane Lions, but may not be necessarily paid up members. (so about 80,000). And that's only because Brisbane made an effort to incorporate significant aspects of the Fitzroy identity and history into their own club, not because there was a merger or relocation
 
Taylor said:
Do you think the AFL cutting off clubs and requiring them to stand on their own feet, even slightly more than now, leading to the clubs having to close their own doors would be a preferred course of action?

That might motivate more supporters to financially support their clubs
Click to expand...

Probably yes, but you're talking about clubs being insolvent through a pandemic not for a reason that this thread smells of - a wish for the idea for the purposes of a more equitable and national comp.
 
Roylion said:
Fitzroy is the example and it was no great example of how an AFL 'merger' should be carried out. For one thing it wasn't even a merger.

In 1998 (two years after their removal from the AFL) the Fitzroy Football Club commissioned a survey of their known members (when they were in the AFL) and from that concluded only 27% of Fitzroy supporters were following the Brisbane Lions.

Other later estimations have been
  • at least 40 percent of Fitzroy supporters were lost to AFL football. Assuming that Fitzroy's support base was about 200,000 (as estimated by polling by Roy Morgan) then we can assume about 80,000 no longer actively supported / lost interest in AFL football.
  • between 5-10 percent of Fitzroy supporters now follow another code or lower levels of Australian Rules football as their primary football experience. (about 10,000-20,000)
  • no more than 5 percent of Fitzroy supporters now follow another AFL side, including a few hundred that went across to North Melbourne. (No more than 10,000). This does not necessarily mean taking out a AFL club membership of their new club. Maybe 800 Fitzroy members / supporters took out a membership of North Melbourne in the years following 1996.
  • over 40 percent of Fitzroy people support / follow the Brisbane Lions, but may not be necessarily paid up members. (so about 80,000). And that's only because Brisbane made an effort to incorporate significant aspects of the Fitzroy identity and history into their own club, not because there was a merger or relocation
Click to expand...

And this is why I don't understand this and these types of threads being brought up, there is no practical backing behind the idea.

All it is, is an excuse for assholes to dream about their wish of culling vic clubs because of the unwarranted giant chip on their shoulder because x state where they come from is not, nor never has been, nor never will be the biggest dog in town as far as footy market share is concerned.

So it's the tired old 'not fair' 'not national' 'vic bias' and if you read between the lines 'force your club to fold / merge / relocate, because it's for the good of the game - don't be selfish' versus the actually reality of why the comp is what it is.
 
Carringbush2010 said:
And this is why I don't understand this and these types of threads being brought up, there is no practical backing behind the idea.

All it is, is an excuse for assholes to dream about their wish of culling vic clubs because of the unwarranted giant chip on their shoulder because x state where they come from is not, nor never has been, nor never will be the biggest dog in town as far as footy market share is concerned.

So it's the tired old 'not fair' 'not national' 'vic bias' and if you read between the lines 'force your club to fold / merge / relocate, because it's for the good of the game - don't be selfish' versus the actually reality of why the comp is what it is.
Click to expand...
You're right that it's mostly pushed by those seeking a more even national competition.

That's why I think the solution to get an even and financially viable competition would be to create a new level above AFL which would be the premier league level of the code, where only clubs that are able to financially support themselves are able to be involved.

That would be a handful of Melbourne clubs, West Coast, Adelaide, maybe Freo, maybe Sydney depending on the sort of corporate sponsors they could pull in.

Maybe eight clubs, 28 games a season - home and away twice each, or 14 rounds where each side plays each other twice home and away.

350 to 400 of the best players in the competition across 8 sides.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Xtreme
Rumour Bailey Smith's rumoured new club...
Replies
5
Views
1K
memoryofmchale
M
BigVic
Rumour Ross Lyon back to Freo and rift
Replies
21
Views
5K
ruck r0v3r
R
C
What the heck? Archtect of Infamous Crows Camp May Be A Child Sex Offender.
Replies
1
Views
91
Engimal v3
Engimal v3
Slats
Scandal The AFL is aware of footage which shows Tom Hawkins looking at a phone during the rain break
2 3
Replies
51
Views
3K
SuperMal
SuperMal
anabac
Rumour Another H Sun Rumour - Nick Riewoldt, no naming other names or cards will fly.
8 9 10 11 12
Replies
286
Views
74K
Chief
Chief
cleveland
Rumour Bevo to stand down or be sacked soon
2 3 4
Replies
98
Views
17K
BulldogMuscle
BulldogMuscle
Black Panther
Scandal Liam Jurrah back in jail (again)
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
134
Views
27K
sharp450
sharp450

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top