Charlie Beagle said:
Lets just make it a "Big 16" and everyones happy
Charlie I understand you are new so you may not understand but this is a pet hate for me.
I am more for a "big 3" rather then a "big 5."
WHY..
Because I debate the fact that Richmond should be considered of higher importance then the likes of the Hawks etc.
Carlton,Collingwood and Essendon, are the 3 teams that have dominated the game for 100+ years, they have the most flags, by some distance, traditionally the most money and have by far the largest membership come supporter base.
On the other hand, Richmond have only won 10 flags, have a membership base smaller then teams considered the minows, and have a supporter base which isnt really that much larger then others under neath them.
I understand I sound like a broken record on this topic, but there is alot of evidence that points to a team like Hawthorn, who has expanded in recent years; thanks to on field and off field relocation being much much much closer in size to Richmond then many people often realise, even evidence to suggest of leap frogging them (which I am not a subscriber to). There is alot of conjecture over such matters which I will not get into on this forum as I have been there to many times. (supporter size)
Thats why I believe a "big 5" or "big 3" is the only way to go.
I would be much more supportive of a "big 3" then a "big 4" or a "big 5" because when you look at it, it is these teams that are the Victorian teams that have the resources to compete with the interstate teams.
While at times I disagree with the future Dicker has guided the club towards, I am in total support of this statement said back at the end of 2003.
http://hawthornfc.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=presview_display&articleid=120365
Collingwood and Essendon are as strong as the interstate Clubs and Carlton and Richmond could be, with their strong support. I think Hawthorn is in that category. But, except with Collingwood and Essendon, anything could happen.
Ten teams against strong opposition is definitely too many. The AFL strategy of reducing the number was right, but they did it the wrong way. Five Clubs have negative net assets and continue to trade on guarantees from future income. Eventually it will catch up, but the latest AFL plan is to give money to loss-making Clubs to sustain them. Again, wrong as it will not build support – only sustain the Clubs.
So, watch the seeds. It could be possible for further relocations, two obvious ones; it may mean a different mix of Melbourne games, I hope it won’t
mean less Clubs.
I think most people with a long enough memory would agree that if there was a "big 5" the teams that have been mentioned would form the guts of the group, and most would also agree that these 5 clubs are the most profitable, most membered, most successful and probably the most popular Victorian clubs, when flying high. Thats a given in my books.
But what I am saying is that IMO, a big 3 exists out of the Victorian clubs, consisting of Carlton,Collingwood and Essendon. If others would be included they would be Richmond and Hawthorn IN THAT ORDER.
To say "the big 4" + Hawthorn, is in a sense fake nostaliga, as in reality evidence points to a different fact. I believe that Hawthorn at times, is under rated, I understand that in the last 2 years our gates havent been flash but from 1997-2003, we averaged a solid 5th,6th,4th,6th,5th,3rd,5th out of the Victorian teams, while competing in our least successful period of 7 years in more then 3 decades.
So in conclusion I consider the "big teams" in Victoria being Carlton,Collingwood and Essendon.
That is of course excluding the very powerful interstate teams