The state of the Giants and Suns

[Doashuey]

So each team will delist 2 players they dont want to make up a Tassy team?
Sound plan.
GC had their pick of the top talent from consecutive draft years and haven't been able to produce a finals campaign yet you think hobbling together a team with the rejects from each club will work?

 

[M Malice]

I love Tasmania, went on a holiday there a few years ago.

 

[Tasmanian saint]

I don't see the issue, considering the priority, f/s picks handed out to traditional clubs it's no different.

And those traditional clubs got them not just from bad luck but disastrous mismanagement. Worse really considering they've had 100 years or so to get it right.

Not different at all. Still effects the draft.

This is painful what part do you not understand ?? Academy and fs picks might push the number of the other clubs picks back one but the players that get picked were never really available to clubs in the open draft anyway where a priority Pick is taking some one out of the draft pool that should have been there can you really not see the difference?

 

[juss]

Do Tasmania deserve a team? Yes
Is Gold Coast the team most likely to fold? Yes
Do most supporters want to see the above happen? Yes and no respectively.

Will the AFL change 100+ years of history and alter the number of players on the field? No

Can't argue with that.
I'm in the relocate a team to Tassie camp. For me it's GC or North, both have their pros and cons.

 

[Kwality]

The bottom 36 of talent isnt up to AFL standard.

Fans put a lot of faith in the draft to solve list problems, too many duds on AFL lists.

 

[Kwality]

Can't argue with that.
I'm in the relocate a team to Tassie camp. For me it's GC or North, both have their pros and cons.

Taswegians arent going to buy a relocation, they wont adopt a team dropped in by the AFL.

 

[Colonial]

This is painful what part do you not understand ?? Academy and fs picks might push the number of the other clubs picks back one but the players that get picked were never really available to clubs in the open draft anyway where a priority Pick is taking some one out of the draft pool that should have been there can you really not see the difference?

Painful? Poor Tasmanian.

Lol of course they are available. Plenty of players for both that have gone through f/s and academies have gone to other clubs.

That's just ridiculous. Outrage for outrage sake.

 

[juss]

Taswegians arent going to buy a relocation, they wont adopt a team dropped in by the AFL.

It's a new team, it's much the same as starting one from scratch. I don't get this whole argument against relocation.
Given 5 years there is no difference between the two, that's the team in Tassie.

 

[Colonial]

Do Tasmania deserve a team? Yes
Is Gold Coast the team most likely to fold? Yes
Do most supporters want to see the above happen? Yes and no respectively.

Will the AFL change 100+ years of history and alter the number of players on the field? No

Most likely to fold? No.

They get barely more money as a 9 year old club than some 100 year old clubs.

And the Suns aren't in a flooded market.

 

[Tasmanian saint]

Painful? Poor Tasmanian.

Lol of course they are available. Plenty of players for both that have gone through f/s and academies have gone to other clubs.

That's just ridiculous. Outrage for outrage sake.

Name the players that have been bid on where bid hasn’t been matched ?? I can think of one josh Dunkley anyway I have no problem with academy or father son picks it’s bizarre that you can’t see the difference between them and a priority pick

 

[Strange Cat]

Don’t be so mean guys. What happened to tolerance and inclusion? If getting rid of new teams because they’re no good for the first couple of decades of their existence was the norm then Hawthorn and a few others wouldn’t be in the AFL either.

Those clubs didn’t cost millions of dollars nor did they lowered the talent pool for the rest of the competition

 

[Blackhawk42]

Can't argue with that.
I'm in the relocate a team to Tassie camp. For me it's GC or North, both have their pros and cons.

Nobody should be in the 'relocation' camp because it's the easiest way to ensure a Tassie team will fail. I would think Tasmanian's would prefer no team than a second hand one.

 

[Blackhawk42]

It's a new team, it's much the same as starting one from scratch. I don't get this whole argument against relocation.
Given 5 years there is no difference between the two, that's the team in Tassie.

And if it's North as you suggested are you expecting their 100 years of VFL/AFL history just dissolves?

 

[Engimal v3]

It's a new team, it's much the same as starting one from scratch. I don't get this whole argument against relocation.
Given 5 years there is no difference between the two, that's the team in Tassie.

Tasmanian Essendon supporters are much more likely to swing towards an organic Tasmanian team than a relocated North Melbourne.

 

[Ian Dunross]

Too many spuds on lists

Def drop it down to 16 a side and 3 on the bench

 

[Professor Knowall]

There's already enough evidence to show that if Gold Coast can get ever their act together on-field (like Brisbane have done) then they will succeed off-field. They have drawn good crowds on occasion (eg 16k last Saturday in the rain). Given the AFL's long term strategic aim of growing the game in Qld, and with grassroot participation numbers increasing, there's no chance of them relocating.

In 1898, 40 years after the start of our game with 20 per side, the then VFL took note that clubs now had trained players with increased fitness, causing play to be congested. They reacted to this by wisely reducing on-field numbers from 20 to 18. Evidently the AFL doesn't consider that players fitness levels and subsequent congestion has changed since 1898! It seems they think the opposite, with the long standing 2 substitutes (just like in soccer) now replaced with the mass interchange of today.

I thus support the OP as today's fitness levels and subsequent congestion demands a long overdue reduction to 16 - in fact, taking into account the reserves as well, this would probably lead to 4-5 delisting per club - more then enough for one new club.

 

[Billy ray]

So each team will delist 2 players they dont want to make up a Tassy team?
Sound plan.
GC had their pick of the top talent from consecutive draft years and haven't been able to produce a finals campaign yet you think hobbling together a team with the rejects from each club will work?

No it wouldnt simply be the worst two players in each list. There could be rules and a framework established to ensure that good players can go across. Plus of course new team would get high draft picks for a few seasons. The AFL can learn from the past with setups of all teams since 1987 and ensure that its done the right way.

If, and its a big if, but if the AFL could set it up in such a way it would be fair, what about the concept as a way forward?

 

[Billy ray]

The bottom 36 of talent isnt up to AFL standard.

Fans put a lot of faith in the draft to solve list problems, too many duds on AFL lists.

As i say above, it wouldn’t necessarily and nor should it be the bottom 36. Just a group of 36 already in the system

 

[juss]

And if it's North as you suggested are you expecting their 100 years of VFL/AFL history just dissolves?

I'm not sure you know how history works. Nothing dissolves it's always there. Things change though not every club is going to be around or the same forever.

 

[juss]

Nobody should be in the 'relocation' camp because it's the easiest way to ensure a Tassie team will fail. I would think Tasmanian's would prefer no team than a second hand one.

One club folds, another emerges. Relocation.
New team, one club folds another emerges.

Keeping an 18 team comp it's the same thing. New colours, a Tassie name, new marketing, who cares if it came from another club folding and moving the licence?

Within 5 years it makes no difference.

 

[Colonial]

Name the players that have been bid on where bid hasn’t been matched ?? I can think of one josh Dunkley anyway I have no problem with academy or father son picks it’s bizarre that you can’t see the difference between them and a priority pick

There are quite a few out there.

Google is your friend.

Instead of the usual VFL fishbowl whinge, try investigating 1st.

 

[Elixuh]

Do Tasmania deserve a team? Yes
Is Gold Coast the team most likely to fold? Yes
Do most supporters want to see the above happen? Yes and no respectively.

Will the AFL change 100+ years of history and alter the number of players on the field? No

Why are GCS the most likely to fold? What is that based on.

 

[BallaratBulldog]

One club folds, another emerges. Relocation.
New team, one club folds another emerges.

Keeping an 18 team comp it's the same thing. New colours, a Tassie name, new marketing, who cares if it came from another club folding and moving the licence?

Within 5 years it makes no difference.

Tassie themselves don't want a existing club relocated, they already have two teams playing a few games there if thats what they want.

If my club relocated or folded I would just leave the game and most would follow.

 

[jarrod_island_doggies]

Don’t be so mean guys. What happened to tolerance and inclusion? If getting rid of new teams because they’re no good for the first couple of decades of their existence was the norm then Hawthorn and a few others wouldn’t be in the AFL either.

100% - Hawks were a diabolical expansion club for multiple *decades* before they tasted success. Then look what happened...

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Do Tasmania deserve a team? Yes
Is Gold Coast the team most likely to fold? Yes
Do most supporters want to see the above happen? Yes and no respectively.

Will the AFL change 100+ years of history and alter the number of players on the field? No

Lol. Gold Coast would be up there with the teams least likely to fold.

The AFL aren’t getting out of there.