Underperforming Clubs Shouldn't be Abolished

[Kwality]

NFL, EPL, Bundesligia, - the prominent ones................. at least from an attendance point of view.

I read it as world comps.

 

[inbetween]

It's a bit of a technicality. Sure, a club like St Kilda could withdraw from the AFL and still exist - but they only exist in its current format because of the existence (and permission) of the AFL. If St Kilda leave to join another league it won't be because it was St Kilda's choice.



I think it's a legitimate discussion as plenty of professional leagues around the world have no reservations in abolishing clubs.

Couldnt the same be said for the WCE or any team in the league. There is no viable alternative.

I think there's plenty of reservations about removing entire teams from sporting leagues (at least at the highest level). The leagues are always acting in their own self-interest ultimately and the removal of an entire club has many consequences, more negative than positive in most cases. Even heavily commercialised 'american' leagues will always look to preserve teams that are struggling. And yes I believe tradition and history is a factor, though not nearly as big a factor as sustainability and profit.
Using the NBA example, the league itself bought the NBA New Orleans Pelicans (hornets at the time) as the owner and the team had enormous debts. It could very well have simply let it die off, but of course it wouldnt have been that simple. There are things like scheduling and TV deals to consider.

And for what its worth - all american leagues use revenue sharing though it is little different to the AFL and each one is slightly different (Im no expect on any of them).

I think the entire premise of the thread is flawed from the beginning. It preaches about not viewing the sport as a commercial product, yet goes off on tangents about inequality and yet the very opening argument was about abolishing clubs for a lack of on-field success. Which of them is it?

Personally - A club should fold if they are no longer sustainable in the long term and I consider AFL-assisted sustainability to be a legitimate form of sustainability.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I read it as world comps.

Prominent none the less.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Or Merge St. Kilda with VFL Club Frankston and Form a 50-50 Joint Venture With North Melbourne in the AFL, That way the Tasmania Devils will enter League in 2025, I'm Dead Serious about this.

And what of the 80k Saints and North members which are part of the probably 200k supporter base? Do you expect them to just accept this?

How about we Merge Collingwood and Frankston, whaddya reckon?

 

[VicBased]

After reading the O.P's full post and the complete list of comments, this thread will once again descend into the "Us and them" category. It is the destined outcome for all threads written and posted by a W.C supporter unfortunately. The usual suspects will rise up against anything that hints of W.A suggesting Victorian favouritism. Difficult for Victorians to acknowledge a team that has overcome the odds and then contribute in a knowledgeable way to a not unreasonable posting. Its what makes B.F go around really. Anyhoo, i personally think the AFL will not only prop up struggling teams but, by the end of next decade, will add another couple to the list.

 

[Kwality]

Couldnt the same be said for the WCE or any team in the league. There is no viable alternative.

I think there's plenty of reservations about removing entire teams from sporting leagues (at least at the highest level). The leagues are always acting in their own self-interest ultimately and the removal of an entire club has many consequences, more negative than positive in most cases. Even heavily commercialised 'american' leagues will always look to preserve teams that are struggling. And yes I believe tradition and history is a factor, though not nearly as big a factor as sustainability and profit.
Using the NBA example, the league itself bought the NBA New Orleans Pelicans (hornets at the time) as the owner and the team had enormous debts. It could very well have simply let it die off, but of course it wouldnt have been that simple. There are things like scheduling and TV deals to consider.

And for what its worth - all american leagues use revenue sharing though it is little different to the AFL and each one is slightly different (Im no expect on any of them).

I think the entire premise of the thread is flawed from the beginning. It preaches about not viewing the sport as a commercial product, yet goes off on tangents about inequality and yet the very opening argument was about abolishing clubs for a lack of on-field success. Which of them is it?

Personally - A club should fold if they are no longer sustainable in the long term and I consider AFL-assisted sustainability to be a legitimate form of sustainability.

Then there is also whats best for the national comp?

does anyone like the FIXture .... ?

 

[Roylion]

Or Merge St. Kilda with VFL Club Frankston and Form a 50-50 Joint Venture With North Melbourne in the AFL

Who's going to bring this about? Many (not all) AFL clubs are member owned and compete in the AFL competition via a licence issued to the club by the AFL. Of course the AFL could revoke the licence, (they would need to justify why) but even that still requires an affirmative vote by 75% of the existing AFL clubs.

That way the Tasmania Devils will enter League in 2025,

The 'Tasmania Devils' can enter the AFL competition as soon as the Commission + 75% of the existing AFL clubs vote in favor of such a move. It's not dependent on Victorian clubs merging.

 

[Goomba1973]

I don't think underperforming clubs should be abolished, but I do think getting it right in the first place.
The Gold Coast is an abject failure with every single top flight sporting team going belly up, every club in every sport that has tried to operate there has ultimately failed.

Don't can the club because they underperform, can them because they will never amount to anything significant. The people there are just not interested.

 

[Kwality]

Who's going to bring this about? Many (not all) AFL clubs are member owned and compete in the AFL competition via a licence issued to the club by the AFL. Of course the AFL could revoke the licence, (they would need to justify why) but even that still requires an affirmative vote by 75% of the existing AFL clubs.



The 'Tasmania Devils' can enter the AFL competition as soon as the Commission + 75% of the existing AFL clubs vote in favor of such a move. It's not dependent on Victorian clubs merging.

All true, can the AFL act in the best interests of the competition?

There is precedent for unilateral agitation by the clubs, http://www.footyindustry.com/?page_id=3080

The underlying question is what is the best interests of the competition as we face change in the media rights funding model that underwrites our game today.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

The amount of Victorians posting in the thread who do not have the attention span required to read the OP correctly is unsurprising.

Bullsh

 

[Roylion]

All true, can the AFL act in the best interests of the competition?

Only whn the majority of the clubs agree. It's up to the commission to convince / persuade the clubs that their view is correct.

There is precedent for unilateral agitation by the clubs, http://www.footyindustry.com/?page_id=3080

I'm aware of all that. I was involved with Fitzroy during the 80s.

The underlying question is what is the best interests of the competition as we face change in the media rights funding model that underwrites our game today.

I'm not convinced that less AFL clubs based in Victoria is in the best interests of the competition.

 

[Forward Press]

I'm not convinced that less AFL clubs based in Victoria is in the best interests of the competition.

If a business case can be made and proved that shifting St Kilda to Tasmania, North to Queensland, and Bulldogs to WA (these are just hypotheticals, not saying it should happen folks), would generate more revenue for the AFL that would outweigh any negative economic consequences from fan backlash - well, sorry but I think the AFL would force the relocations whether the Saints, Roos and Dogs fans like it or not.

Not saying it's the right thing to do but as many have pointed out in this thread and others, it's all about the money.

 

[Roylion]

If a business case can be made and proved that shifting St Kilda to Tasmania, North to Queensland, and Bulldogs to WA (these are just hypotheticals, not saying it should happen folks), would generate more revenue for the AFL that would outweigh any negative economic consequences from fan backlash - well, sorry but I think the AFL would force the relocations whether the Saints, Roos and Dogs fans like it or not.

The AFL have no legal basis to "force relocations" against a club's wishes. They couldn't do it to Fitzroy. They couldn't do it to North Melbourne either.

The club has to agree. 75% of clubs have to vote in favour.

 

[Forward Press]

The AFL have no legal basis to "force relocations" against a club's wishes. They couldn't do it to Fitzroy. They couldn't do it to North Melbourne either.

The club has to agree. 75% of clubs have to vote in favour.

You will have to educate me on this, but how did the Fitzroy merger with Brisbane happen then? Did Fitzroy agree to it? Or were rules changed subsequently? Genuine question - could the AFL not use their control of the purse-strings anyway to force a move somehow?

Thanks.

 

[Roylion]

You will have to educate me on this, but how did the Fitzroy merger with Brisbane happen then?

There was no merger. Details how and why are on the Fitzroy Football Club board here.

Did Fitzroy agree to it?

No. Fitzroy Football Club had their AFL licence removed. Brisbane Bears rebranded their club to the Brisbane Lions. Brisbane Bears and the Brisbane Lons are the same club.

Genuine question - could the AFL not use their control of the purse-strings anyway to force a move somehow?

The AFL could certainly try to influence a club to relocate, but ultimately it's the club's choice. And the relocation has to be ratiifed by 75%+ of the existing AFL Clubs. North Melbourne in 2007 i s a case in point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_relocation_of_the_North_Melbourne_Football_Club

 

[Forward Press]

There was no merger. Details how and why are on the Fitzroy Football Club board here.



No. Fitzroy Football Club had their AFL licence removed. Brisbane Bears rebranded their club to the Brisbane Lions. Brisbane Bears and the Brisbane Lons are the same club.



The AFL could certainly try to influence a club to relocate, but ultimately it's the club's choice. And the relocation has to be ratiifed by 75%+ of the existing AFL Clubs. North Melbourne in 2007 i s a case in point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_relocation_of_the_North_Melbourne_Football_Club

It's a pretty long read, but that deed you posted makes numerous references to a merger so I am still confused. Are you insisting then that every expert and person since end of Fitzroy in the AFL (is that the correct term?) are wrong when they call it a merger? I know Fitzroy still exists in a Victorian league, but does this mean that Brisbane's trophy rooms and record books would exclude Fitzroy's achievements in the VFL era?

From what I understand of the North relocation, it was more that it became massively unpopular and the AFL and North board (which initially may have voted to relocate) quietly nixed the idea.

And thanks, genuinely.

 

[Roylion]

It's a pretty long read, but that deed you posted makes numerous references to a merger so I am still confused.

"Merged Club" means Brisbane Bears which will conduct the combined Club Operations of Fitzroy and Brisbane Bears following the Merger;

This involved the Brisbane Bears effectively purchasing parts of Fitzroy's AFL "Club Operations" (in order to help settle Fitzroy's debts) and adding them to their own after 1st November 1996. Equipment and other assets. The Bears even tried to claim the Fitzroy Club Hotel, but that failed.

Are you insisting then that every expert and person since end of Fitzroy in the AFL (is that the correct term?) are wrong when they call it a merger?

I'm a Fitzroy shareholder. Both in 1996 and to this day. Reference to a "merger" is AFL marketing. The AFL wanted to keep as many Fitzroy supporters and members on board as possible.

Even the Brisbane Lions claimed Fitzroy Football Club was a different club when they ended up in court against each other in 2010.

I know Fitzroy still exists in a Victorian league,

Same club that used to hold an AFL licence permitting it to compete in the AFL.

but does this mean that Brisbane's trophy rooms and record books would exclude Fitzroy's achievements in the VFL era?

The Brisbane Lions certainly market their club as representing Fitzroy's identity in the AFL. The Brisbane Lions have three premierships only though. Not 11.

From what I understand of the North relocation, it was more that it became massively unpopular and the AFL and North board (which initially may have voted to relocate) quietly nixed the idea.

The North board did under pressure from their members. They rejected the AFL offer to relocate. North Melbourne certainly could not be forced to relocate. Which is the basic point I'm making.

 

[Kwality]

Only whn the majority of the clubs agree. It's up to the commission to convince / persuade the clubs that their view is correct.



I'm aware of all that. I was involved with Fitzroy during the 80s.



I'm not convinced that less AFL clubs based in Victoria is in the best interests of the competition.

Not sure the AFL does need the majority /& of the clubs to agree,

Whats in the best interest of the competition is pretty much Vic v the rest & there is no simple test. In the end I suggest it will be a business decision (see the transfer of games (home?) from Melbourne).

 

[Yoey]

The competition is at the crossroads, either become professional and even it up or fall into oblivion. Victoria has had its grip on the game for 100+ years and its time to let it go and make the game truly National. The Northern states won't fully embrace it until this bias is removed and the game allowed to be owned by everyone....not just the chosen clubs in Victoria!

 

[Roylion]

Not sure the AFL does need the majority /& of the clubs to agree,

Any decision by the commission to admit or relocate a club or approve the merger of clubs can be reversed by the clubs at a duly constituted meeting of clubs called within 14 days of receiving formal notice of a Commission decision to admit, relocate or approve a merger of clubs.

A three quarters majority is required to overturn any such decision by the commission. Three clubs may requisition a meeting of clubs to reverse a decision by the Commission to admit or relocate or approve a merge of clubs. Clubs cannot be merged unless the clubs who are party to the merger first agree.

Clubs also have a reserve power on the possible expulsion of a club from the competition. Any decision by the Commission to expel a club must be ratified at a general meeting of clubs by a three quarters majority.

In the end I suggest it will be a business decision (see the transfer of games (home?) from Melbourne).

Business decision made by who?

 

[Kwality]

Any decision by the commission to admit or relocate a club or approve the merger of clubs can be reversed by the clubs at a duly constituted meeting of clubs called within 14 days of receiving formal notice of a Commission decision to admit, relocate or approve a merger of clubs.

A three quarters majority is required to overturn any such decision by the commission. Three clubs may requisition a meeting of clubs to reverse a decision by the Commission to admit or relocate or approve a merge of clubs. Clubs cannot be merged unless the clubs who are party to the merger first agree.

Clubs also have a reserve power on the possible expulsion of a club from the competition. Any decision by the Commission to expel a club must be ratified at a general meeting of clubs by a three quarters majority.



Business decision made by who?

Based on your post (thanks), it would need the AFL & 3/4 of the clubs.

The business decision be similar to the VFL on South Melbourne, & driven by a reduction in the value of the media rights (similar to Rugby Australia as a result of the international value their media rights in the UK, ie the money). Self interest would be the prime driver.

 

[Roylion]

Based on your post (thanks), it would need the AFL & 3/4 of the clubs.

Yep.

The business decision be similar to the VFL on South Melbourne

South Melbourne made the decision to play home games in Sydney and later to relocate to Sydney.

It was not a VFL decision.

While the VFL had started moving a few premiership matches to the SCG annually since 1979 they were originally in 1981 preparing to establish an entirely new, 13th VFL club in Sydney.

Fitzroy had investigated a relocation to Sydney in 1980 to become the Sydney Lions. Fitzroy president Frank Bibby and Graeme Plum (Fitzroy committeeman 1979-1983) were invited by Kevin Humphries, president of the NSW Rugby League, to the Sydney Cricket Ground, for the 'Rugby League Marathon'. WHne visiting the SCG in 1979 Fitzroy president Frank Bibby and Graeme Plum (Fitzroy committeeman 1979-1983) concluded that there was a great opportunity for Australian football in Sydney and that Fitzroy should be a part of that. Fitzroy carried out a series of fact finding work, including lining up a deal with a licensed Australian rules club in North Sydney to act as a social club, finding sponsors and even lining up a bank to assist with finances, if they were given significant representation on the board. Fitzroy's solicitor David Cotter registered the name "Sydney Lions." The guernsey of the new Sydney Lions would have been the existing Fitzroy guernsey with the 'FFC' monogram replaced by a 'SFC' monogram. My point was is that this relocation would have been a club initiative, although there was support from the VFL. Fitzroy rejected relocating to Sydney on 19 August 1980.

& driven by a reduction in the value of the media rights (similar to Rugby Australia as a result of the international value their media rights in the UK, ie the money). Self interest would be the prime driver.

I assume you refer to 'self-interest' by a Victorian club.

 

[Erick_the_Greatest]

Abolish Sydney

incapable of any semblance of existing successfully without generous AFL assistance. A 30 year old stain on the competition

 

[AuntyBlindEye]

If you're going to respond to a thread the least you can do is read the entire thing. Justifying replying without actually finishing to read it because it is "drivel" only makes you look stupid regardless if the OP/you are correct.

On topic, I'd rather just see a relegation system set up in place to allow the main comp to play less games/play every team twice. Obviously that brings up problems in the lower leagues where teams would be playing against their reserves and I don't have a solution for that, but I keep coming back to the EPL where some of the worst performing teams still have a following and the ability to play in a league. Better than straight up dissolving teams.

 

[Ok Boomer]

I think it would be quite entertaining watching regular strugglers fight for promotion/against relegation each year.

More drama in that compared to what we have where we just wait to see who sucks the most for the number one pick.