Relocation

[Port Adelaide 1870]

Originally posted by Bomber Spirit
The Kangaroos are damaged goods in Sydney. They burned their bridges when they moved that game back to Melbourne in 2000.

A second Sydney team would definately have potential playing out of Stade de Oz. The Swans membership would probably prefer to stay at the SCG, but the crowds this year have shown there's support out there for games at Homebush.
If the Roos had held their nerve, they could have had a chance to develop that market; which definately exists. But at the moment the Roos don't have a good reputation in Sydney and it would take a lot of work to turn that around.

Build a Brand New Sydney team with a Sydney identity...It would be great.

PA1870

 

[Port Adelaide 1870]

Originally posted by Pessimistic


Plenty of examples and they just reflect countries which have huge concentrations of population in urban areas.

Scotland for example.

Or brazil. I think they maintain 'state' leagues there and have a national champoinship which is like the european championship


The melbourne clubs are sustainable because of the huge amount of supporters, connections and history they have. The problem is the large differences between them financially.

If you take the clubs in each year making losses, the non victorian clubs are represented there in ratio to the competititon

Surely the fact that brisbane have won tw flags and posted two corresponding losses suggests the management of the league as the whole needs looking at ?

The only reason these Melbourne teams are now sustainable is because they took Business markets and Millions of dollars out and away from two Historical Football states, they ruined two equivalent competitions simply to sustain Clubs from a Melbourne based competition....This sustainability is now about over..

With the Multi million dollar environment now required of each cluband that requirement is still growing with the complete professional nature of the game inevitable......There is simply NOT enough money to go round in Melbourne to sustain former VFL Clubs at National level...

IT is Inevitable that some will fall over..

PA1870

 

[sainter]

Originally posted by Mr Eagle
So? If the clubs I earmarked for the chopping block can continue to fund themselves (without being propped up by the AFL), let's just leave it as is...

No club is being propped up by the AFL. A few clubs are receiving financial assistance but that is hardly the same thing. In fact the thing I find interesting with your line of thinking is that it's actually the teams like the Kangaroos, Western Bulldogs and St Kilda that aren't blessed with blockbuster games and prime time television slots like their neighbours. It's these teams who would relish an even draw yet you seem to be advocating the loss of certain Victorian teams because it will mean an even draw to the eagles.

It's quite sad that someone like yourself is happy to see clubs denied access to financial assistance all in the name of having a more even draw.

The best thing about this competition is that not all of our teams are a part of the chardonnay set like certain clubs. Some of us will struggle with below-par facilities and make do with far less than the next club but you can be rest assured that the day these clubs can't exist in their own right is the day that the AFL competition will be poorer for it.

Originally posted by Jabber


Yep - I don't see any more Waverleys for the AFL to sell.

Hilarious

I take it the non-Victorian teams won't be taking their $2 million dividend from the sale of Waverley then.

 

[Rob]

Originally posted by Joffaboy


Bravo Bulldog1954.

It rolls so easily off the tongue to say relocate Bulldogs, relocate Kangaroos, get rid of this Melbourne clubs, get rid of that Melbourne club.

The people who take it as a fait accompli that these clubs will just move, dont seem to understand the facts.

The facts are that up to three quarters of a million Melbournites will be disenfranchised if, for example North and the Dog are relocated or go under. The equilevant would be relocating the crows out of Adelaide.
Can the AFl afford to p.iss off so many supporters of the game in its heartland?

Would the economic imperialists who propose these moves, even consider that the AFL and teams like the Bulldogs and the Roos are built on passion and emotion?

We saw the lack of passion displayed by some interstate sides during the past finals series, where their supposed supporters couldn't be bothered turning out to watch them play in a final. The inclusion of interstate finals almost turned out to be a disaster and the finals only came alive in the last two weeks of the series. It was no co-incidence that the focus by then was back on Melbourne.
Passion drives the competition not just dollars and cents.
Supporters and potential players will be lost to other sports in their thousands if clubs are relocated.
The overall financial pie will srink and all supporters of all clubs will be worse off.

The League does not consist of the four big Melbourne Clubs and the six interstate clubs.
The League is based on a sixteen team competition with ten based in Victoria.

Get used to it.

Which is why it's much more preferable for existing clubs to relocate or merge rather than just die.

You're dead right, passion drives the competition. But to imply that dollars and cents mean nothing (just ask the players) is ignorant garbage.

The AFL, by handing out millions is doing little more than just delaying the inevitable and risking the future of more clubs down the track. For every million given to a struggling club (for which there is little to no prospect of every seeing a return on that) means about $70k less to every club in the end of year AFL dividend. If the money is borrowed by the AFL, then tack on interest as well. Could mean the difference between a profit and loss for many clubs.

 

[grayham]

While what you say is true. I think the AFL has to convince the public and the supporters that there really is no alternative. They did that with reasonable success with South and Fitzroy, but it will take a couple more years probably. As someone said, North and the dogs are where Fitzroy was in about 1993/4.

Originally posted by Rob


Which is why it's much more preferable for existing clubs to relocate or merge rather than just die.

You're dead right, passion drives the competition. But to imply that dollars and cents mean nothing (just ask the players) is ignorant garbage.

The AFL, by handing out millions is doing little more than just delaying the inevitable and risking the future of more clubs down the track. For every million given to a struggling club (for which there is little to no prospect of every seeing a return on that) means about $70k less to every club in the end of year AFL dividend. If the money is borrowed by the AFL, then tack on interest as well. Could mean the difference between a profit and loss for many clubs.

 

[Bulldog1954]

Originally posted by grayham
While what you say is true. I think the AFL has to convince the public and the supporters that there really is no alternative. They did that with reasonable success with South and Fitzroy, but it will take a couple more years probably. As someone said, North and the dogs are where Fitzroy was in about 1993/4.

North and the Dogs are not as bad as Fitzroy in 1993/94 in sponsorship, membership or on field.

And while everyone seems to think it is inevitable that either the Dogs, Roos or Saints will either die, merge or relocate the fact is that people have been saying that for years and years yet all 3 clubs are still standing prouder then a honeymooners willy.

The Dogs were in bigger trouble then this in 1989, 13 years later we are still here.

 

[Rob]

Originally posted by Bulldog1954


North and the Dogs are not as bad as Fitzroy in 1993/94 in sponsorship, membership or on field.

And while everyone seems to think it is inevitable that either the Dogs, Roos or Saints will either die, merge or relocate the fact is that people have been saying that for years and years yet all 3 clubs are still standing prouder then a honeymooners willy.

The Dogs were in bigger trouble then this in 1989, 13 years later we are still here.

Standards are also much different now. Fitzroy died with a debt of just under $3 million. Carlton's debt is about $9 million, yet there isn't much talk of them going under.

10 years ago a debt of anything over $1 million was seen as dire. But it could usually be solved with a tin rattle and a lamington drive. If the Bulldogs or the Roos had a debt of $6 million, how confident would you be that their supporters could come up with that kind of money?

Clubs might have bigger memberships, bigger crowds and bigger sponsorship deals. But they also have bigger salaries, bigger football departments and bigger losses and debts. In short, costs are going up more than revenues are.

BTW, as a Bulldogs fan, do you know why the AFL didn't allow you to play a game in Cairns? Pity about that.

 

[Mr Eagle]

Originally posted by sainter
It's quite sad that someone like yourself is happy to see clubs denied access to financial assistance all in the name of having a more even draw.

Hey I'd like to see all teams play each other twice in the 16 team comp as is. But I definitely don't want other clubs to have to carry the can for a team that just expects to be carried along on the basis of their history rather than their ability to fund their own existence. BTW, what's the difference between financial assistance of a team with no certain answers to its woes and "propping up"? Not much.