The game will eat itself

[Wally Matera]

why? because they know that the corwds will flock and there is more money to be made. Just like Man U can go and play a practice match against a Jap team and fill the stadium. It has nothing to to do with bolstering crowds dude, its about making more money from the product, because it sells, not because they have to, in an effort to keep clubs surviving. Man you have to be kidding me, you really dont see the difference do you?

How is that different to what the AFL does? Maximise profit by doctoring the fixture... you just 5 minutes ago said that it didnt happen anywhere else. It was only in our corrupt sport. It does... and the rationale behind the FA doing it... do you know? Well, l'll tell you... you're half half right... it was to introduce great funding to struggling clubs like West Ham, Reading, Wigan, Portsmouth, etc, etc. Its no surprise that the big clubs were against it... as you say, they travel to Japan, US, etc, etc during the off-season and dont need to cash. But it was FA's way of getting an extra 5-10 mil into struggling clubs.

But no, the AFL is the only "elite" competition that is assisting clubs during financially difficult times.

YOU CONTINUE TO ONLY ARGUE RANDOM POINTS. YOU HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO BE LAZY, ILL-EQUIPPED, HYPOCRITICAL and CONTRADICTING. You dont even know what you are arguing now.

You've started an argument that you know nothing about, you continue to ask me to support my argument with facts - and l've accomlished that in every post. You have been randomly shooting off comments without supporting evidence.

Well done Cogga. Well Done. Again, thanks for your input.

 

[Wally Matera]

incorrect dude. One record breaking low crowd against a record breaking high crowd.

Are you trying to make yourself look silly? Exactly... one game of record behaviour. Imagine what the difference would be on normal average standards. A greater shit on!

 

[CoggaRules]

How is that different to what the AFL does? Maximise profit by doctoring the fixture... you just 5 minutes ago said that it didnt happen anywhere else. It was only in our corrupt sport. It does... and the rationale behind the FA doing it... do you know? Well, l'll tell you... you're half half right... it was to introduce great funding to struggling clubs like West Ham, Reading, Wigan, Portsmouth, etc, etc. Its no surprise that the big clubs were against it... as you say, they travel to Japan, US, etc, etc during the off-season and dont need to cash. But it was FA's way of getting an extra 5-10 mil into struggling clubs.

But no, the AFL is the only "elite" competition that is assisting clubs during financially difficult times.

YOU CONTINUE TO ONLY ARGUE RANDOM POINTS. YOU HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO BE LAZY, ILL-EQUIPPED, HYPOCRITICAL and CONTRADICTING. You dont even know what you are arguing now.

You've started an argument that you know nothing about, you continue to ask me to support my argument with facts - and l've accomlished that in every post. You have been randomly shooting off comments without supporting evidence.

Well done Cogga. Well Done. Again, thanks for your input.

doctoring the fixture is different to adding onto the fixture dude.
So lets get this straight. You are debating that the FA and the AFL are following the same formula correct?

 

[oxx]

I'm enjoying Wally and Cogs - doing more work than the AFL has in 20 years

 

[CoggaRules]

Are you trying to make yourself look silly? Exactly... one game of record behaviour. Imagine what the difference would be on normal average standards. A greater shit on!

THIRD WEEK IN A ROW OF RECORD-BREAKING SANFL FINALS...

Now think about how much doctoring of thed fixture goes on with the AFL and how much has gone on over the last 2 decades and think about the % increase in overall "crowd averages". Then think about why they will keep the anzac day to one game at the G, between bummers and the scum. Why they want to have tankers and us on the thursday night before good friday? for the season opener. thats 2 80K+ crowds. It all looks good when you add 160K to the total you are using at the end of the year, to "show" how good things are going when you are selling the game to those who want to buy into it, re. sponsors, tv etc, even though a dogs v roos game, would pull 3 and a dog, and a roo, to it. The game is dying a slow death, especially here in Melbourne. We will have 4 teams max within 20 years.
The lions and swans? they will only succeed if the AFL keeps them up at the top end of the ladder. Once and if the AFL lets them swim without floaties then you will see how good a shape the game is in. But it wont happen because the AFL doctor and conjure the whlole comp just like WW wrestling.

Most rules they introduce gives them more power to produce the "required" result. i,e the grey areas are there on purpose. It lets the media and us go gaga but in the meantime the required result is there for them. ITs the only way for them to survive in the long term.

 

[Wally Matera]

doctoring the fixture is different to adding onto the fixture dude.
So lets get this straight. You are debating that the FA and the AFL are following the same formula correct?

Its doctoring, you know it, l know it, everyone knows it. How can adding a game not be doctoring?

No they dont follow the same formula, they have an even competition... we dont. But both competitions aim to aid each club as best they can, with priority of making as much $$$ as they can for club and comp.

So far you have told me the AFL will reduce the amount of teams in the competition down to 14 within the next 10 years, which INCLUDES the addition of 2 new teams.

I have told you that the competition has not changed in the last 13 years and you're expecting 2 new teams, possibly 3 because you seem so keen on Tasmania, and then the competition to be reduced down to 14 clubs in total - all in the next 10 years.

You claim that the AFL should be embarassed of its crowds and wary of the A League and that their code

I've given you figures and statistics that show the A League were bringing in 9000 and 14000 people to preliminary/semi finals and compared that to figures of 30000 ave crowds of a club you think should go. Not to mention the A League wanting INCREASE the number of teams in their competition.

You laughed at my suggestion of 16 clubs being the AFL's preferred model...

But make no comment about the fact that the television stations will absolutely not stand for a competition with any less... if anything, they're wanting 30 rounds a year.

You also make no comment about the competition once having 12, 14, 15 and 16 teams and then have no valid rationale for cutting it back to 12 or 14 in the next 10 years.

You abuse Mario Speedwagon for having a go at trying to come up with a solution to bettering the game.

You offer no solutions of your own

So you have told us all that the superior SANFL competition regularly brings in average 30,000 crowds.

I did YOUR research and proved you were incorrect. That they were bringing in the inspiring records of 14,000 to a preliminary final. You also decide to compare ONE GAME of extraordinarily poor attendances against a ONE GAME of record high (even though the percentage difference is still 33%!) and claim that that is your basis for reducing to competition because North obviously cant survive.

YOU HAVE STILL YET TO PROVE YOUR CLAIMS OF 30,000 crowds in the SANFL and Port Adelaide would walk into the AFL and be successful... even though the Port Adelaide that is in the competition is the 2nd worst crowd pulling club.

You have told me that no other competition manipulates fixtures to bring in revenue and asked me to give you examples of other codes doctoring their fixtures to help struggling clubs.

I gave you the perfect Cricket Australia example. You believed because it was an Australian competition (even though you were happy to compare the AFL previously to both the SANFL and the A League) it wasnt a reputable comparison... you wanted international comparison. I gave you the FA and the 39th game.

You told me the 39th game was for taking the game abroad.

I told you were half right, but again, to do do your research as it was largely aimed at supporting financially stricken clubs. The aim was to help clubs like West Ham, Portsmouth etc, who are all financially ****ed and it was a win-win for marketing and a quick investment to the poorer clubs.

At what stage do you want to:

- offer any solution of your own
- do any research of your own
- concede that your statement clearly are incorrect and factless
- that you have no idea what youre talking about
- AND, that thought of the AFL reducing the competition down to 12-14 teams in the next 10 years is the biggest load of horse shit.

Once again, thanks for you input

 

[richoatthedisco]

Well, might as well be hung for a sheep than a lamb, so here goes...

...this will be the future:

A sheep??! **** me Mario, that's a whole goddamn flock!

Agree with Wally on the effort that's gone into this but there's no way it will ever happen. We will certainly never go back to an in-season midweek comp: the game is just too demanding on players to justify putting them at risk for some meaningless attempt to ape English football. Soccer is much less harsh on the body and the FA Cup has a rich tradition; the (Spalding/Escort/Wizard/Whatever) Cup does not. No chance.

Your division formula is a little complicated and like Wally, I would prefer not to see it. Under your system we could play Carlton and Collingwood four times in a home and away season and the Eagles or Crows zero. Some might like that, no doubt it would be good for crowds, but it divides the game too much for my liking.

Re Wally's relegation and promotion system, I just don't think our game has the depth to support it. It would create even more of an underclass than there is now. Imagine if North spent a few years in Div 2? Goneski.

If there are to be divisions a simple Vic/Rest of Aus split seems most logical. Eight teams in each, you play the seven in yours twice and the others once, alternating home games.

As for the game, I'm with Paul Roos: stop ****ing with it! Go back to the rules as they used to be. The thing that makes our game so great, so diffferent from the rest is the organised chaos of it all. Nature and quantum physics tell us that chaotic systems tend towards order over time. The game sorts itself out: flooding was going to ruin football; intense man-on-man all over the ground broke it down. That was making footy boring; Geelong made it beautiful again. The rolling zone... can be overcome. The game will find a way, if the tools in charge just let it. It is a magnificent, living, breathing, evolving, self-regulating organism that needs no outside meddling to find equlibrium, just time.

Until the next coaching innovation, which, in time, will also be countered.

The one change I would make is increase the bench to six but make them all substitutes, i.e. once you're off, you're off. That would slow down the breakneck pace of the game and keep the best players on the park (imagine it: a rover resting in the forward pocket! Centremen - remember them - changing on a HFF!).

The winners of the SWFL will play the VFL premiers and a new fully professional EFL (NSW& QLD ) in a try series for the AFL 2 Premiership. The VFA, TFL, QAFL & NSWFL premiers will play off for the AFL 3 Premiership. In AFL 3 ...to avoid blow outs common to lower level footy...a catch-up option will be instituted...wher by if a team is ahead by certain number of goals after half time, they must lose two players...the losing team's scoring values will be doubled , the team that is leading will be awarded 4 points and retain it's percentage, if they still win they recieve a bonus point and the winning margin is asdde to their percentage. If the losing team wins they will be awarded 3 premiership points instead of 4.

And each team must have a girl on the field and a Down Syndrome player in the squad, and maybe if the big nasty team is winning by too much one of their players could play for the opposition. Maybe we could put a limit on how many times a player is allowed to touch the ball, just to be fair...

Professional and innovative merchandise of lower league teams will be heavily pushed onto the public...sold to footy fans and ironic hipsters alike.

You're counting on a lot of morons there Mario...

 

[Wally Matera]

Great post mate

Re Wally's relegation and promotion system, I just don't think our game has the depth to support it. It would create even more of an underclass than there is now. Imagine if North spent a few years in Div 2? Goneski....

Couldnt agree more. Although l love the EPL format, l know it would have trouble getting off the ground here. I suppose the biggest blight on the game for is when clubs know their season is over... there's no incentive. I love the EPL in that the incentive is to continue to win, win and win. But yes, you're right... if North went down, gawn.

As for the game, I'm with Paul Roos: stop ****ing with it! Go back to the rules as they used to be.

Thats easy for him to say, when he is the one that introduced one of the worst tactics our game has ever seen and continues to shit in the face of how our great game used to be played. Also, wasnt Paul Roos the one who delibrately threw pre-season games? I think that goes against the general ethics of all sporting behaviour.

The one change I would make is increase the bench to six but make them all substitutes, i.e. once you're off, you're off. That would slow down the breakneck pace of the game and keep the best players on the park (imagine it: a rover resting in the forward pocket! Centremen - remember them - changing on a HFF!).

Nice one, like the idea, dont mind that either. But l also dont like extending the bench and "gifting" blokes games when they step on the field for all of 7 minutes. Can you imgaine it...

Michael Tuck, 426 Games, ave ground time = 80%, total minutes played 40,800
Mark Jamar, 525 Games, ave ground time = 6%, total minues played 3,780

 

[getthefooty]

Cmon Cogs. Let's see the evidence for the 30K crowds. Shouldn't be that hard dude.

 

[rfctigerarmy]

Wow, oxx, I'm suprised. This is a really good thread. Heres a few of my thoughts..

Whats happened to AFL for the better in the last 15 years? Not much. The game has allowed 'football players' to become runners with acquired skill rather than the other way around. Its a bit of a shame, but the game is faster which makes things more exciting. New rules being introduced to sports more often then not spoil the game. Look at sports like Golf which are untouched (pretty much).

I believe the push in the back rule was the final dagger in the heart. How on Earth is a defender going to have a chance at spoiling the ball or providing a contest with this rule in place. It was so much better before when the rule was there, but the umpire would make a decision based on severity.

I actually watched the Basketball the other day on the new Channel 10 ONE station. Its not a game I often watch on TV (I dont have foxtel) but I now really understand where people are coming from comparing AFL to basketball. The whole movement of a slow build up from the back half of the court and to then throw the ball around the 3 point line (much like the 50m arc) draws so many common traits of both sports.

AFL has moved from being a sport to entertainment and everything has to do with making money. And, when that starts happening, sports go down the tube in terms of our love for the playing ability of the players.

In a lot of ways, I like the VFL form of the game where flooding isn't as severe as in AFL because the players tend to get the ball and kick it long. Sure, the skill isn't as high but its much more of a 90's style than the 2000's.

 

[Mario Speedwagon]

Ry-t-o...not going to quote everyone individually...and as for Cogga..well you can't argue with willful incoherance...nor some yuppie twat who obviously works in advertising, marketing or some useless middle management type role where everyone talks like Americans and has a cocaine problem...

So I'll just explain the reasoning behind the ideas I raised..not all of which are entirely original ...and some that were clearly far-fetched and tongue -in -cheek....I'll address the first two in this post and the rest later...

The International Rules idea...personally I hate the IR series..wish it would disappear and never be spoken of again...however if we are to persist with it, I think we should at least play the bloody game at some level outside the 2 tests (which should be a best of 3 ..the third only being played if a decider if necessary...preferably in Boston..) the concession to our rules are tolkien at best, we play with their ball , on a square field and have to find some poor sap fullback willing to look like a goose in the goalkeeper role. An off -season comp. could be used to give a run to fringe players, triallists and ease the Irish imports into the game...also attract more to come out and give it a go as it would take place during their off-season. It would at least in some way keep footy in the minds of people(who would still connect it to AFL)...provide revenue via tv rights here and in Ireland (ok not vast sums , but humour me anyway) and merchandising. A short and sweet comp. Another trophy to play for..albeit a pissant one. Of course it's far-fetched and won't happen, but those are my reasonings.

The zoning idea...(as people call it)....well not really a zoning idea...more a two-phased premiership idea...the zones are only in effect for phase one which as i said is merely a qualifying or seeding phase...I chose the zones based on rivalries and geographical closeness...to maximise crowds and minimise travel costs...I don't think think the prospect of 4 Richmond v Carlton or WC v Freo games in the H&A season is a big deal..(infact dunno why anyone would see it as a bad thing)...nor is the prospect of zero Rich v WC & Freo V Carlton either.

Now being a lifelong West Ham supporter, I am more than familiar with the "joys" of promotion/relegation battles and agree that this would not be workable in Australia.The qualifying phase would in effect be a mini-promotion-relegation battle, but not really,the consequences would not be as severe....kind of the best of both worlds.
Firstly..everybody starts each season equally. The second phase is merely two tiers of 10 sides playing each other twice , with those in the top tier having the opportunity for the top 6 finals spots , whilst those in the lower tier are playing for the final 4 spots and have to play and win every week in order to win the flag...but all 20 teams can still win the flag, the lower ten are merely fighting for two less spots and a harder passage. 2 of them would still at least make the second week of finals....I based this idea on a future 20 team comp. and having read people talking of 30 game seasons...which for a game like AFL would be excessive and risk revolt from the AFLPA...(which btw, I believe does not contradict my proposal for a cup if my other suggestins for list management were involved..but more of that later) This I feel would be the best compromise in a 20 team competition as you can't have 38 H& A rounds. It's not too long , it's not too short, the big games are protected, team's destiny's are in their own hands (they only really get punished for being slow starters to a season..and that would still be their fault..)plus there's an extra week of finals.
Some qualifying groups may be easier than others in a given year, but without the realistic possibilty of everyone playing each other twice, then, as we have now, every year's draw is going to be fairer to some than it is to others...at least this way we don't get certain clubs favoured year after year *coughs* Eddie*coughs*

 

[CoggaRules]

Ry-t-o...not going to quote everyone individually...and as for Cogga..well you can't argue with willful incoherance...nor some yuppie twat who obviously works in advertising, marketing or some useless middle management type role where everyone talks like Americans and has a cocaine problem...

So I'll just explain the reasoning behind the ideas I raised..not all of which are entirely original ...and some that were clearly far-fetched and tongue -in -cheek....I'll address the first two in this post and the rest later...

The International Rules idea...personally I hate the IR series..wish it would disappear and never be spoken of again...however if we are to persist with it, I think we should at least play the bloody game at some level outside the 2 tests (which should be a best of 3 ..the third only being played if a decider if necessary...preferably in Boston..) the concession to our rules are tolkien at best, we play with their ball , on a square field and have to find some poor sap fullback willing to look like a goose in the goalkeeper role. An off -season comp. could be used to give a run to fringe players, triallists and ease the Irish imports into the game...also attract more to come out and give it a go as it would take place during their off-season. It would at least in some way keep footy in the minds of people(who would still connect it to AFL)...provide revenue via tv rights here and in Ireland (ok not vast sums , but humour me anyway) and merchandising. A short and sweet comp. Another trophy to play for..albeit a pissant one. Of course it's far-fetched and won't happen, but those are my reasonings.

The zoning idea...(as people call it)....well not really a zoning idea...more a two-phased premiership idea...the zones are only in effect for phase one which as i said is merely a qualifying or seeding phase...I chose the zones based on rivalries and geographical closeness...to maximise crowds and minimise travel costs...I don't think think the prospect of 4 Richmond v Carlton or WC v Freo games in the H&A season is a big deal..(infact dunno why anyone would see it as a bad thing)...nor is the prospect of zero Rich v WC & Freo V Carlton either.

Now being a lifelong West Ham supporter, I am more than familiar with the "joys" of promotion/relegation battles and agree that this would not be workable in Australia.The qualifying phase would in effect be a mini-promotion-relegation battle, but not really,the consequences would not be as severe....kind of the best of both worlds.
Firstly..everybody starts each season equally. The second phase is merely two tiers of 10 sides playing each other twice , with those in the top tier having the opportunity for the top 6 finals spots , whilst those in the lower tier are playing for the final 4 spots and have to play and win every week in order to win the flag...but all 20 teams can still win the flag, the lower ten are merely fighting for two less spots and a harder passage. 2 of them would still at least make the second week of finals....I based this idea on a future 20 team comp. and having read people talking of 30 game seasons...which for a game like AFL would be excessive and risk revolt from the AFLPA...(which btw, I believe does not contradict my proposal for a cup if my other suggestins for list management were involved..but more of that later) This I feel would be the best compromise in a 20 team competition as you can't have 38 H& A rounds. It's not too long , it's not too short, the big games are protected, team's destiny's are in their own hands (they only really get punished for being slow starters to a season..and that would still be their fault..)plus there's an extra week of finals.
Some qualifying groups may be easier than others in a given year, but without the realistic possibilty of everyone playing each other twice, then, as we have now, every year's draw is going to be fairer to some than it is to others...at least this way we don't get certain clubs favoured year after year *coughs* Eddie*coughs*

as opposed to some stupid fruiterer who grew up working in the family fruit shop, probably hated doing it, but now that he has been handed the keys to it, goes around proporting to be some big nob "employer" who "uses expendable good for nothing skips to work for him", correct?
And now this fruiterer ooops sorry, bg time employer, says he has the answer to stuff other than what the price of brocolli should be.

 

[Wally Matera]

as opposed to some stupid fruiterer who grew up working in the family fruit shop, probably hated doing it, but now that he has been handed the keys to it, goes around proporting to be some big nob "employer" who "uses expendable good for nothing skips to work for him", correct?
And now this fruiterer ooops sorry, bg time employer, says he has the answer to stuff other than what the price of brocolli should be.

Typical Cogga... picks out what he wants, adds nothing to a conversation and continues to show no research to anything he says.

Has no ideas of his own, abuses others for theirs and continues to give everyone the like a queer simpleton.

As for you Mario... well done, l'm glad someone actually has the courage to go in detail on their ideas, regardless if some of your proposals may be challenging to get off the ground.

 

[CoggaRules]

Typical Cogga... picks out what he wants, adds nothing to a conversation and continues to show no research to anything he says.

Has no ideas of his own, abuses others for theirs and continues to give everyone the like a queer simpleton.

As for you Mario... well done, l'm glad someone actually has the courage to go in detail on their ideas, regardless if some of your proposals may be challenging to get off the ground.

you sound like Pete Sassegum dude. Hey WM, read the HUN today man? Looks like everyone is high fiving with what the future holds for the struggling clubs huh? Not to mention the AFL canning the NAB match in Sout Africa, purely on not wanting to "spend" money, as opposed to wanting to "make money". Keep dreaming, the game is on the skids, and they are all running scared as to the future direction, especially the less patronised Melbourne clubs.
Why would you think the clubs are having "crisis" meetings, without the AFL? Go on, give it your best shot.
When you have done that, give us your "expert" take, on what position the then Brisbane Bears, now Brisbane Lions would have been in, had it not been for the Roys being shunted north...and the position the AFL would have been in, after it had shovelled shit loads of cash into an ailing Sydney Swans venture that was like pissing money up against the wall, and most likely still is.
The same fate will befall the GC, even after as the guru Demetriou suggested, all the due diligence was taken before they formed the "franchise". They will get all the favours come drafts etc, and then get all the favours re. picking up players from other clubs, but whats the ****ing difference with what the faovurs that the Swans and Lions got? JS, apart from a few years to develop youngsters. When its all looking like a pile of shit and there are 3 people and a dog at Carrara, by that time the roos will be just about toast and they wont have a choice. Thats one, then we head for West Sydney etc etc. until we have 3 teams in WA, 3 in SA, 2 each in Qld and NSW, and 4 here. The end.

Here we have an entity, the AFL, who controls the game, secures 800 mill tv rights, ontop of all other revenue, and they have what? $80 mill in the future fund? And now this future fund is going to be targetted by clubs that are in the present, to "shore" them up. Even the scumwood is running scared, so you can imagine the fate that is about to befall Braynless-shaw and the Loos, Jemmy and the Deads, etc etc.
The same entity that built AFL park and pissed all that money up against the wall, the same entity that built the Dome and had to bribe clubs to get them to play there, the same enity that couldnt even get the grass growing right, and spent millions on ****ing trying to get grass to grow. This is the entity that has done "due diligence" on the GC's entry.

 

[deliberate!!]

Wow, oxx, I'm suprised. This is a really good thread. Heres a few of my thoughts..

Whats happened to AFL for the better in the last 15 years? Not much. The game has allowed 'football players' to become runners with acquired skill rather than the other way around. Its a bit of a shame, but the game is faster which makes things more exciting. New rules being introduced to sports more often then not spoil the game. Look at sports like Golf which are untouched (pretty much).

I believe the push in the back rule was the final dagger in the heart. How on Earth is a defender going to have a chance at spoiling the ball or providing a contest with this rule in place. It was so much better before when the rule was there, but the umpire would make a decision based on severity.

I actually watched the Basketball the other day on the new Channel 10 ONE station. Its not a game I often watch on TV (I dont have foxtel) but I now really understand where people are coming from comparing AFL to basketball. The whole movement of a slow build up from the back half of the court and to then throw the ball around the 3 point line (much like the 50m arc) draws so many common traits of both sports.

AFL has moved from being a sport to entertainment and everything has to do with making money. And, when that starts happening, sports go down the tube in terms of our love for the playing ability of the players.

In a lot of ways, I like the VFL form of the game where flooding isn't as severe as in AFL because the players tend to get the ball and kick it long. Sure, the skill isn't as high but its much more of a 90's style than the 2000's.

Nice point rfctigerarmy.

 

[CoggaRules]

Hey Wally where are ya man? awaiting your "expert" opinion on what went down in the paper today dude?

You wanted a solution from me? You cant possibly sustain a national comp into the future, with more than half the teams in it, based in one city. See if you can see the solution there dude? You might not like it, you might offer inane rule changes that might make the game a little more attractive, but the game's attractiveness aint the ****ing problem. You might get a 1 or 2 % rise in crowds through the gate like that, but that is like the little boy with his finger in the ****ing dyke.
I can guarantee that if the AFL started up a franchise in SA say, they would be far and above anything a Roos or a Bulldogs or a Melbourne are now and can ever wish to be. And the AFL know that.
I would even go as far as to say, they could start up a team in Darwin and that team will prosper more than any of the also rans down here have and will into the future.

 

[Wally Matera]

Hey Wally where are ya man? awaiting your "expert" opinion on what went down in the paper today dude?

You wanted a solution from me? You cant possibly sustain a national comp into the future, with more than half the teams in it, based in one city. See if you can see the solution there dude? You might not like it, you might offer inane rule changes that might make the game a little more attractive, but the game's attractiveness aint the ****ing problem. You might get a 1 or 2 % rise in crowds through the gate like that, but that is like the little boy with his finger in the ****ing dyke.
I can guarantee that if the AFL started up a franchise in SA say, they would be far and above anything a Roos or a Bulldogs or a Melbourne are now and can ever wish to be. And the AFL know that.
I would even go as far as to say, they could start up a team in Darwin and that team will prosper more than any of the also rans down here have and will into the future.

Cogga, is that the extent of your research? An article in the HERALD SUN? An article in the Herald ****ing Sun. Oh dear, you are that stupid.

1) I have never disageed with you that due to financial reasons, clubs are struggling and yes, there will be pressure on a club or two to relocate to areas the AFL want to invest in.

2) Your statement was that the league was going to introduce 2 clubs and lose 6 Victorian clubs (either by death or by merger) in the next 10 years. You've mentioned that the Roos, Dogs and Dee's are vulnerable... yes they are, but to move all of them on and 3 of say StKilda, Richmond, Hawthorn, or Carlton (assuming the AFL keep Collingwood, Essendon and Geelong) is farcical - IN THE NEXT 10 YEARS! You know it, everyone knows it. The AFL is in motion to reduce the number of Victorian clubs but in the next 10 years, we will have a minimum of 7 clubs in Melbourne and 1 in Geelong - so long as there is 16 clubs in the comp.

3) I still believe that AFL will want 16 clubs in the competition - yes its a difficult ecomonic climate - but we're not talking a recession that lasts 30 years. We are not a competition like the NBL where by clubs come and go like a slippery fart after a big night on the gas.

4) Never talked about the attractiveness of the game, other than we still and always will be the premier sporting code in Australia.

5) I can guarentee you that based on the lack of crowds Port Adelaide are getting to grounds, (l can give you the figures again if you want?!?!) that the AFL are more likely to invest again into WA than Adelaide.

Please mate, l ask you one thing, please... please... stop being lazy. An article from the Herald Sun. Even you have stooped to new lows.

Lastly, everyone here has been wanting to know... give us the 30,000 stats again mate. We're on the edge of our seats. You give us that and we may actually start listening.

 

[CoggaRules]

Cogga, is that the extent of your research? An article in the HERALD SUN? An article in the Herald ****ing Sun. Oh dear, you are that stupid.

1) I have never disageed with you that due to financial reasons, clubs are struggling and yes, there will be pressure on a club or two to relocate to areas the AFL want to invest in.

2) Your statement was that the league was going to introduce 2 clubs and lose 6 Victorian clubs (either by death or by merger) in the next 10 years. You've mentioned that the Roos, Dogs and Dee's are vulnerable... yes they are, but to move all of them on and 3 of say StKilda, Richmond, Hawthorn, or Carlton (assuming the AFL keep Collingwood, Essendon and Geelong) is farcical - IN THE NEXT 10 YEARS! You know it, everyone knows it. The AFL is in motion to reduce the number of Victorian clubs but in the next 10 years, we will have a minimum of 7 clubs in Melbourne and 1 in Geelong - so long as there is 16 clubs in the comp.

3) I still believe that AFL will want 16 clubs in the competition - yes its a difficult ecomonic climate - but we're not talking a recession that lasts 30 years. We are not a competition like the NBL where by clubs come and go like a slippery fart after a big night on the gas.

4) Never talked about the attractiveness of the game, other than we still and always will be the premier sporting code in Australia.

5) I can guarentee you that based on the lack of crowds Port Adelaide are getting to grounds, (l can give you the figures again if you want?!?!) that the AFL are more likely to invest again into WA than Adelaide.

Please mate, l ask you one thing, please... please... stop being lazy. An article from the Herald Sun. Even you have stooped to new lows.

Lastly, everyone here has been wanting to know... give us the 30,000 stats again mate. We're on the edge of our seats. You give us that and we may actually start listening.

man i suggested 10 maybe 20. Maybe i should have said even 30. But the one thing that is going to happen is that when the "big picture" plan is realised, there will be 4 teams in this town. The aints and us are in the gun...the dawks have set themselves up for survival purely by being the "in" team, for the generation that will be us, when that time comes. Our shitness over the last 2 decades has cost us BIG TIME. The majority of members and supporters now, will be on the pension then. Same with the aints. Of course that is blown out of the water is we have some miraculous resurrection that has us marketing the yellow and black to a new generation for the next 20 years, by the quality of footy.
The port adelaide crowd problem is that they are like the scum, you either support them or you hate them. There are many supporters that will jump on the next team, purely because they want in, they cant get in with the crows and they hate the scum.

As for the stat, which one are you talking about?

 

[mhill]

man i suggested 10 maybe 20. Maybe i should have said even 30. But the one thing that is going to happen is that when the "big picture" plan is realised, there will be 4 teams in this town. The aints and us are in the gun...the dawks have set themselves up for survival purely by being the "in" team, for the generation that will be us, when that time comes. Our shitness over the last 2 decades has cost us BIG TIME. The majority of members and supporters now, will be on the pension then. Same with the aints. Of course that is blown out of the water is we have some miraculous resurrection that has us marketing the yellow and black to a new generation for the next 20 years, by the quality of footy.
The port adelaide crowd problem is that they are like the scum, you either support them or you hate them. There are many supporters that will jump on the next team, purely because they want in, they cant get in with the crows and they hate the scum.

As for the stat, which one are you talking about?

That assertion is plain ridiculous. If you are saying this to get a rise out of other posters, congratulations.
If not, think seriously about what you write.
4 clubs in Melbourne?
Please.

 

[santa claws]

there is one easy solution and if people do their homework they will see where all the troubls have emanated from.kill of the interchange and over a short period of time you will fix most of the games ills.

 

[tigerbelly]

Title: The Game Will Eat Itself

Alt. Title: Lets Fix This Thing​

​

​

Hey guys, this is great. I have been offline for a few weeks after power surge took computer out but to come back to this is excellent. One page I have read and I can see 3 great ideas, use them all I say.

1. Get rid of NAB cup, no point, too many different agenda`s re: what individual clubs are trying to acheive which affects both standard + actual competition on day.
Look at Carlton`s side this week.

2. Extend season to 30 H+A rounds with player game restrictions, reasons covered plus cut the negative aboutthe favorable draws.

3. Only pay free kicks that impede, lots of soft free`s could easily be let go which would create a need to play more for the ball + remove the "playing for the free" concept a lot.

4. The idea of reducing the number of on field players, 16 I believe remove the wings as in the VFA days, should reduce the numbers at the ball, particually at centre bounce.

5. Add to the above the idea which seems to be gaining momentum of increasing the bench to 6, 4 interchange + 2 subs maybe? This would mean the numbers in each side would still be the same on game day as they are now.

I think all these ideas would lead to a more open free flowing games, more 1 on 1 contests more marks and more debate, should that have been a free or not, which is I believe one of the true great things in our game.

Keep the ideas coming guys

Tigerbelly

 

[CoggaRules]

That assertion is plain ridiculous. If you are saying this to get a rise out of other posters, congratulations.
If not, think seriously about what you write.
4 clubs in Melbourne?
Please.

man, it might sound plain ridiculous to those that hang onto this "tradition" thing, but its gunna happen, purely because to sustain a "national" comp, with the available population in each big city, and in this case Melbourne, the less teams you have in each city, the less choice the people of have on who they offer their allegiance to.
Dont look at with the backwards thinking hat on, take a look at the Fitzroys and South Melbourne's of this world, think about how known they were, when they were part of the comp and how long it took for them to become distant memories to the overall population.
Go and ask the 20 somethings if those names mean anything to them? The game aint relying on us for the future dude, its targeting what us was, but it going to limit the number of teams you have to support. That way, there wont be a problem with a team here in Melbourne, getting 50 thou members or more.
Every year there are teams under pressure financially.
If it aint this year, its the next year. Forever the AFL is handng out cash to keep them afloat, the teams have a good year, they do ok, i.e. profit of 100K or 200K, they do bad, they lose 500K etc, then they go to the AFL for aid.
It doesnt change, even the scum find it difficult to keep the graph going up. You cant sustain the number of teams we have here into the future. The end. You might not like it, and elect to argue against it, but its a ****ing inescapable fact IMO.
The only way the game can prosper, is when you have clubs, where you have people needing to go onto a waiting list to become members of and not needing to have tents outside grounds, with membership drives.

You see the AFL is forever shelling money out to keep clubs afloat.
So if you had 4 even 5 clubs in this city with a membership of 50thou+ each, then you have clubs that are strong and self sustaining, not needing hand outs to survive.
And please dont give me the i will never follow another club BS. It aint about you or me dude its about the future and who will want to be members then and the choices they have.

 

[mhill]

man, it might sound plain ridiculous to those that hang onto this "tradition" thing, but its gunna happen, purely because to sustain a "national" comp, with the available population in each big city, and in this case Melbourne, the less teams you have in each city, the less choice the people of have on who they offer their allegiance to.
Dont look at with the backwards thinking hat on, take a look at the Fitzroys and South Melbourne's of this world, think about how known they were, when they were part of the comp and how long it took for them to become distant memories to the overall population.
Go and ask the 20 somethings if those names mean anything to them? The game aint relying on us for the future dude, its targeting what us was, but it going to limit the number of teams you have to support. That way, there wont be a problem with a team here in Melbourne, getting 50 thou members or more.
Every year there are teams under pressure financially.
If it aint this year, its the next year. Forever the AFL is handng out cash to keep them afloat, the teams have a good year, they do ok, i.e. profit of 100K or 200K, they do bad, they lose 500K etc, then they go to the AFL for aid.
It doesnt change, even the scum find it difficult to keep the graph going up. You cant sustain the number of teams we have here into the future. The end. You might not like it, and elect to argue against it, but its a ****ing inescapable fact IMO.
The only way the game can prosper, is when you have clubs, where you have people needing to go onto a waiting list to become members of and not needing to have tents outside grounds, with membership drives.

You see the AFL is forever shelling money out to keep clubs afloat.
So if you had 4 even 5 clubs in this city with a membership of 50thou+ each, then you have clubs that are strong and self sustaining, not needing hand outs to survive.
And please dont give me the i will never follow another club BS. It aint about you or me dude its about the future and who will want to be members then and the choices they have.

I agree that some clubs may go, possibly a couple - if we were a proper, genuine national competition then yeah maybe 4 clubs would happen but it probably would already have happened.

Reality is that we are not a national competition like say cricket or even basketball.

We are a Melbourne based Southern state competition with niche interest in parts of the south east Queensland.
In Sydney, we are a plaything for the eastern suburbs and expat Victorians.

The problem with your theory is based on the incorrect notion that we are a genuine national competition, we are not.

Even Mario could tell you that.