Remake the AFL as it should have been in 1987 - yes its the offseason...

[Albert Ross]

There were plenty of individual WAFL club fans in 1986. A Subi / Claremont game in 1986 drew almost 22 000 and an end of year game between Subi and Hawthorn had over 25 000.

WAFL games were still getting regular + 10000 crowds and I believe if my club in West Perth had entered, the opportunity to see us play VFL clubs would have brought thousands through the gates.

Subiaco may have been a viable option as they were more than competitive, had the facilities and were the most financial club in the league.

I'm not sure regular is accurate, and other than the derby West Perth didn't achieve it. http://www.wafl.com.au/games/year/1986

The entire H+A attendance of the WAFL in 1986 was 623k across it's 84 games for an average of 7416.

In 1986 Collingwood, Carlton and Essendon individually drew more to their 22 H+A games than the entire WAFL H+A season.

The highest average attendance in the WAFL H+A was Subiaco with 8,512. The lowest in the VFL was St Kilda with 15,609.

1986 attendance per club
Subiaco (8512)
Perth (8121)
West Perth (7795)
East Fremantle (7765)
Claremont (7734)
Swan Districts (7006)
East Perth (6913)
Sth Fremantle (6300)

And the other thing that nostalgia has blanked-out is that WAFL crowds were already in decline. 3,000 people per round deciding to stay at home before the AFL gave them the excuse.

1983 - 697,494
1984 - 672,746
1985 - 634,828
1986 - 623,245

 

[telsor]

Yep. And when the inevitable 'where's Collingwood or Richmond?' comment comes up, the inevitable answer is 'you didn't play well enough to earn a spot'.

No problem with that. 2 issues however.

1. If there is money in it, then it'd probably lead to successful teams becoming entrenched in the top league (you could hardly have an effective salary cap when some teams play so many extra games, and more money=better players).

2. You'd have some massive blowouts because it takes no consideration of the quality of the leagues. St Mary's might have been the most successful team in NT, but Hawthorn would destroy them, and the the worst team in the VFL would still be expected to beat them handily. While point 1 might actually help this in a way over the longer term, in the early days, it'd really damage the credibility of the comp meaning there wouldn't be a longer term.


BTW. You also have the usual issue with 'longer season' arguments...Where do they play when many of the grounds are used by Cricket.

 

[syl97]

It's funny they're seen as a powerhouse club off the field now when you consider the pet membership drive of a decade ago and how in the 80s the VFL hated the Hawthorn dominance as it led to smaller crowds at block buster games.

The divergent paths of Melbourne, Hawthorn and North Melbourne since the 90s is very interesting. Hawthorn went on the 'pet membership drive', Melbourne had Uncle Joe and North fought against the move to Gold Coast. In hindsight Hawthorn's 'pet membership drive' gave the strongest base to build on.

 

[fishardansin]

The divergent paths of Melbourne, Hawthorn and North Melbourne since the 90s is very interesting. Hawthorn went on the 'pet membership drive', Melbourne had Uncle Joe and North fought against the move to Gold Coast. In hindsight Hawthorn's 'pet membership drive' gave the strongest base to build on.

Yes there was real money behind it too. Not just a billionaire like Melbourne but a lot of medium fish. Also the period of success and the rivalry with Geelong has been important. It remains to be seen how sustainable it is though compared to "the big 4" who still have a large following through periods of pure trash and mediocrity. Look at Richmond. Almost a consistent joke for 30 years yet still draw huge crowds. Collingwood have just won the two flags yet are consistently the biggest draw card in the league. Carlton and Essendon have been trash for over a decade now and both have had controversies that have shaken the club to the core yet still are major drawcards and powerhouse clubs in other respects.

It's nothing to do with the skill of modern administrators it's just historical facts leading to a huge loyal supporter base.

I don't like the feel of having clubs that rely on the central cash stash to survive in a league where big spending on travel and sports science is required. I think that only clubs who can afford to survive in this league on their own when they're languishing in a period of crapness should remain. All that money going to prop clubs up so that there is more quantity of games, which reduces the quality, seems like madness to me. Less teams means better quality, it also means that state leagues could be a higher quality. A comp with North, Footscray, Werribee, Port Melb, Melb, St Kilda, Fitzroy and some of Bendigo, Ballarat, Albury, Mildura, Warnambool and Sale would be awesome. The state could be divided up so that each of those clubs have a junior program that replaces the TAC cup and players who don't get drafted naturally play for the senior side.

Money made from AFL with TV rights ect could be spent on development leagues, such as state league juniors, and propping up one club in Qld and one club in NSW. 12 team AFL with final 5 would be amazing. Each club to have reserves with unlimited interchange that plays the day after the seniors at the home teams training facility. That way both teams can have all emergencies on stand by for the senior game and subs can play a little bit the following day. The away team can use the home team's facility for recovery.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

People arguing that certain Vic clubs shouldn't be kicked out in this alternate universe comp arnt taking into account that at the time they were just a state league like all the others. What gives saint kilda and footscray more deserving status than let's say North Adelaide or swan districts?

Personally a 4x4x4 system looks favorable for the traditional states. With a single team in the northern states to begin with in Brisbane and Sydney. And also a single team representing tassie to quell any north/south divide if a certain team was elevated to the NFL. This will mean a bye but the players will be happy with that.

In time by maybe mid 90s-mid 00s we could look at te introduction of an expansion phase. With a new club introduced for each northern state. If an academy system was introduced in the 80s for the Brisbane/Sydney teams then by the expansion phase the talent pool can absorb the impact of 2 new teams with little flow on effect for the greater league as a whole.

Then after a decade of this expansion phase which takes us to 2015 then maybe the plans to introduce a new team will be taking place. This team may be one of a team in ACT, NT or even NZ.

Let's say another decade has passed and participation rates in nsw and Qld are on par with WA and SA then maybe another major expansion phase can take place. In 2025 we may see the introduction of a third team in QLD and NSW. This will take the league to 18 teams which means that the state leagues will still have plenty of quality players running around and providing a good spectacle on a scale of a second tier that rivals the level down from EPL.

What are people's thoughts on this model

It depend on whether the comp would be an expanded comp (VFL->AFL) or a new "super league" comp (AFL/NFL). If it's an expanded comp I can't see only 4 Vic teams surviving.

 

[The Speaker]

An expanded competition was, in the short term, great for the VFL.

It was terrible was the WAFL and SANFL, and in the long term has been bad for Australian football.

A national competition would require a central governing body entirely independent of any of the state leagues.

They would have to then work with the state leagues to ensure that each one works under the same conditions (eg. salary cap). A national competition could either be a) a certain amount of teams from each league playing in a separate competition or b) the best teams each year play a championship in September to decide the national champion. I favour the second option, as it leaves more room for State of Origin as well.

No new franchises for any league. No mergers. State organisations can figure out how to deal with expanding populations in time.

A total national structure is absolutely possible.

 

[Goggin Our Best]

. A comp with North, Footscray, Werribee, Port Melb, Melb, St Kilda, Fitzroy and some of Bendigo, Ballarat, Albury, Mildura, Warnambool and Sale would be awesome. The state could be divided up so that each of those clubs have a junior program that replaces the TAC cup and players who don't get drafted naturally play for the senior side.

[/QUOTE]

God their supporters would be thrilled to bits playing Sale !!

I got a good laugh out of that mate

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Yes there was real money behind it too. Not just a billionaire like Melbourne but a lot of medium fish. Also the period of success and the rivalry with Geelong has been important. It remains to be seen how sustainable it is though compared to "the big 4" who still have a large following through periods of pure trash and mediocrity. Look at Richmond. Almost a consistent joke for 30 years yet still draw huge crowds. Collingwood have just won the two flags yet are consistently the biggest draw card in the league. Carlton and Essendon have been trash for over a decade now and both have had controversies that have shaken the club to the core yet still are major drawcards and powerhouse clubs in other respects.

It's nothing to do with the skill of modern administrators it's just historical facts leading to a huge loyal supporter base.

I don't like the feel of having clubs that rely on the central cash stash to survive in a league where big spending on travel and sports science is required. I think that only clubs who can afford to survive in this league on their own when they're languishing in a period of crapness should remain. All that money going to prop clubs up so that there is more quantity of games, which reduces the quality, seems like madness to me. Less teams means better quality, it also means that state leagues could be a higher quality. A comp with North, Footscray, Werribee, Port Melb, Melb, St Kilda, Fitzroy and some of Bendigo, Ballarat, Albury, Mildura, Warnambool and Sale would be awesome. The state could be divided up so that each of those clubs have a junior program that replaces the TAC cup and players who don't get drafted naturally play for the senior side.

Money made from AFL with TV rights ect could be spent on development leagues, such as state league juniors, and propping up one club in Qld and one club in NSW. 12 team AFL with final 5 would be amazing. Each club to have reserves with unlimited interchange that plays the day after the seniors at the home teams training facility. That way both teams can have all emergencies on stand by for the senior game and subs can play a little bit the following day. The away team can use the home team's facility for recovery.

I'm curious to this Richmond myth
Their non "big 4" games draw poorly (I'm not saying hawthorn draw better)
Their figures are inflated by having games against bigger teams


I agree a league with those teams would have been good, and the vfl need to rebrand before it's too late

Teams in Warrnambool, geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo, Shepparton, and teams throughout Gippsland, with a smattering of suburban clubs would be ideal

 

[W.C. Fry]

I would have kept the VFL but reduced it down. Who managed to stand on their own and who merged could be debated all day. Lets say the Footscray Roos, the Carlton Fitzroy FC (because their logos and suburbs are both so close together), and the the Demons got exercised and became Saints.

Now kick Sydney out of the VFL and they join the newly formed AFL. Joining them are Brisbane, Tasmania, West Coast, Freo, Adelaide, Port and The Territories (combined NT ACT side that is based in NT but plays around half its games in the ACT).

The AFL sides play each other twice home and away (14 games) and play the VFL sides once (8 games - 4 home, 4 away - locations are rotated each year) for a 22 game season. VFL does the same thing.

Both leagues finals series is 1v2 - winner goes to grand final. 3v4 is elimination final. The 2nd week the loser of 1v2 plays winner of 3v4 to get a spot in grand final.

Both grand finals are big events - The VFL flag still carries the same weight as it always had. The AFL one will build up over the years too, but not quite have the same meaning to fans in the rest of Australia as a VFL flag means inside Victoria.

Then obviously we have our Superbowl... the Australian Championship Cup.

 

[Mr Belial]

I like a 16 team model.
Talk of traditional teams rights vs created teams rights etc is a little over stated since we are talking about a NATIONAL competition (yet still a consideration when deciding which Victorian teams to cut). A few Victorian teams would have to go but at the same time Victoria would have to have more teams than the other states.
I would have Victoria 7, WA 3 , SA 3, NSW 2, Qld 1. The third team from WA and SA would have to reflect the largest remaining potential supporter base and also consider geography. So;
VIC
Carlton
Collingwood
Essendon
Richmond
Hawthorn
Geelong
Melbourne
WA
West Coast
Fremantle
Midlands
SA
Adelaide
Port
South East
NSW
Sydney
West Sydney
QLD
Brisbane

 

[Pessimistic]

Vic teams need non vic and vice versa, the whole is bigger than the sum of the parts.

But if the unthinkable happened, the vic teams will survive and prosper better than the others.

 

[Niximus]

Adelaide
Brisbane
Darwin
East Melbourne
Hobart
Perth
Sydney
West Melbourne

 

[NorthernLights]

Adelaide
Brisbane
Darwin
East Melbourne
Hobart
Perth
Sydney
West Melbourne

That league wouldn't last 5 years.

 

[Niximus]

That league wouldn't last 5 years.

My concerns would be Darwin and Hobart due to low population, but all the others would be very strong teams.

I'm sure many Victorians would read that list and not see their suburban team on it and their initial reaction would be that they wouldn't be interested, but Adelaide and West Coast show that even in footy-mad states, people are able to follow a new team in a separate league without any trouble.

If we were living in a world with that league, the East/West Melbourne clash would be huge.

Additionally, fewer teams would mean a greater concentration of elite players per team while still having enough talent to make a national reserves comp very watchable.

 

[NorthernLights]

My concerns would be Darwin and Hobart due to low population, but all the others would be very strong teams.

I'm sure many Victorians would read that list and not see their suburban team on it and their initial reaction would be that they wouldn't be interested, but Adelaide and West Coast show that even in footy-mad states, people are able to follow a new team in a separate league without any trouble.

SA and WA people are a lot more parochial than Victorians though. The Crows and Eagles had large followings mainly due to the commonly held notion of 'lets unite against the Vics'.

 

[Hawkk]

SA and WA people are a lot more parochial than Victorians though. The Crows and Eagles had large followings mainly due to the commonly held notion of 'lets unite against the Vics'.

The WAFL and SANFL weren't televised nationally in primetime as the VFL was with the winners.

Lets not kid ourselves the VFL was the 'big league' for at least 10 years up to 1987, most WAFL / SANFL supporters had pre-existing VFL clubs long before the SA / WA hybrid AFL clubs were created...

 

[Niximus]

SA and WA people are a lot more parochial than Victorians though. The Crows and Eagles had large followings mainly due to the commonly held notion of 'lets unite against the Vics'.

The new Melbourne teams would be embraced in a new top tier comp as semi-rep sides like SoO. Having no connection to pre-existing sides would be an advantage rather than a disadvantage IMO.

By now there'd be a whole generation that grew up with them.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

SA and WA people are a lot more parochial than Victorians though. The Crows and Eagles had large followings mainly due to the commonly held notion of 'lets unite against the Vics'.

It wasn't just that though. The Crows built their brand on being inclusive, a team for all SA. It's a bit of a no-brainer when your the only team in town and you've got a 6 year head start on nearest rival. The new brand represented a fresh start. It could have easily been Port Adelaide to be the first through the gate but their brand is alienating to neutral supporters, many of which grew up with Port as a traditional rival.

 

[NorthernLights]

The new Melbourne teams would be embraced in a new top tier comp as semi-rep sides like SoO. Having no connection to pre-existing sides would be an advantage rather than a disadvantage IMO.

By now there'd be a whole generation that grew up with them.

That's why I said the comp wouldn't last 5 years. The existing generation would abandon it.

 

[NorthernLights]

The WAFL and SANFL weren't televised nationally in primetime as the VFL was with the winners.

Lets not kid ourselves the VFL was the 'big league' for at least 10 years up to 1987, most WAFL / SANFL supporters had pre-existing VFL clubs long before the SA / WA hybrid AFL clubs were created...

Exactly. This is precisely why there couldn't have been just the two Melbourne franchises ("West Melbourne" and "East Melbourne") as was suggested.

 

[Niximus]

That's why I said the comp wouldn't last 5 years. The existing generation would abandon it.

I disagree that the self proclaimed 'sporting capitol of the world' would abandon a national league of the national sport merely because their suburban teams weren't included.

The A league has dine alright with newly created teams, the big bash also as well as the previous examples in the current AFL.

 

[NorthernLights]

I disagree that the self proclaimed 'sporting capitol of the world' would abandon a national league of the national sport merely because their suburban teams weren't included.

The A league has dine alright with newly created teams, the big bash also as well as the previous examples in the current AFL.

Victorians wouldn't abandon Clubs with over 100 year of tradition in the sport that Melbourne made. The A-league and Big Bash were start up leagues, different story.

 

[Niximus]

Victorians wouldn't abandon Clubs with over 100 year of tradition in the sport that Melbourne made. The A-league and Big Bash were start up leagues, different story.

This would also be a startup league. Your suburban teams would still exist in the VFL.

The SANFL and WAFL have histories every bit as rich as the VFL, and people have no problem supporting an AFL team, and a state league team.

 

[NorthernLights]

This would also be a startup league. Your suburban teams would still exist in the VFL.

The SANFL and WAFL have histories every bit as rich as the VFL, and people have no problem supporting an AFL team, and a state league team.

The problem would be that the VFL would still be the biggest and most popular league in the Country while the new makeshift national league would go broke.

At the time, SA and WA people wanted a team in the 'big league', while Victorian people already had clubs in the 'big league'.

 

[Niximus]

The problem would be that the VFL would still be the biggest and most popular team in the Country while the new makeshift national league would go broke.

At the time, SA and WA people wanted a team in the 'big league', while Victorian people already had clubs in the 'big league'.

It would be more likely that the VFL would go broke. They were already in financial trouble which 2as the main driver behind the expansion, the licence fees.

The VFL was at the time the highest level being the biggest state league. It would lose that instantly when forced to compete with a national league.