VFL 2025

[AussieNick1999]

When is the 2026 thread dropping? Some good signings being announced. David Cunningham to Willy, Heath Ramshaw to Coburg. Southport losing a fair few good players

Probably worthwhile to start one soon. There really isn't anything left to cover specifically for season 2025.

EDIT: I've done it.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

VFL standalone clubs were receiving grant money prior to the pandemic. As far as I know there's been no explanation given as to why that hasn't returned.

The AFL needs to ensure it won't let standalone clubs fold if they agree to focus on player development. You can't expect these clubs to put in the work to develop these guys, bleed them dry and then leave them to fold when being a footy factory doesn't pay the bills. This is a moral obligation they accepted when they took control of the VFA's on-field competition. If they didn't want that, then they should have stuck to their own reserves league.

These would be my terms if the AFL wanted us to priortise player development:

- Standalone clubs are obligated to provide a spot to no more than 8 undrafted Coates players (whether they play or not depends on whether they are genuinely best 23 during the season)

- AFL reserves clubs are also required to provide spots for undrafted Coates players. Standalones should not shoulder the entire burden of developing players at the expense of building the most competitve list possible.

- A minimum standard for match day venues: drinking water, toilets, and some permanent seating in addition to an adequate playing surface. Grounds like Tramway Oval and Arden Street discourage spectators from attending VFL games.

- Incentivise recently-retired or delisted AFL players to sign with a VFL team (e.g allow clubs to sign a marquee player outside the salary cap.) This enables standalone clubs to attract high-profile players with experience at the elite level, and ensures that the VFL remains a high standard competition by encouraging the best non-AFL players to choose the VFL over local footy. This is to the AFL's benefit too, because a higher standard competition will produce better players.

Keep in mind that for these standalone clubs, "looking elsewhere" may not be an option. Frankston would not be accepted by either the MPFNL or the SFNL (both of which have Frankston teams already) and would lose supporters to other local clubs if they were forced into the same competition. We have no future in any competition that isn't the VFL, and I doubt we're the only club in that position. Being in the VFL is a matter of survival for us, so if the AFL wants to impose conditions on us being in the VFL, they need to commit to looking after us in the long term. If that's not a responsibility they want to accept, then they should have kept their noses out of the VFA and kept their own reserves league.

Would the VFA / VFL and any of the clubs still be around if they didn’t take over the competition?

 

[AussieNick1999]

Would the VFA / VFL and any of the clubs still be around if they didn’t take over the competition?

The way it was going? Probably not, but the AFL could have chosen to keep out of it, leave the VFA to its fate, and continue to run their own reserves league the way they wanted and have it be the undisputed second tier for developing players. But we don't live in that timeline. Instead we live in a timeline where the AFL accepted responsibility not just for the VFA's on-field competition, but the overall welfare of Australian rules football. To me that means they have a duty of care to the wider game and community clubs, not just their own league and clubs. That's a duty of care they accepted when they chose to become the national governing body for football.

I'll state this again for the final time: if the AFL wants grassroots and community clubs to play a role in developing players for the AFL, they owe it to these clubs to ensure their long-term survival is assured. These clubs matter to their communities and have every right to advocate for their own interests.

 

[CFC1995]

Probably worthwhile to start one soon. There really isn't anything left to cover specifically for season 2025.

EDIT: I've done it.

Please post it in here so we can all bookmark

 

[AussieNick1999]

Please post it in here so we can all bookmark

VFL 2026

Dad said it's my turn to run the season thread. 2026 VFL PARTICIPATING CLUBS Box Hill Hawks Brisbane Lions Carlton Casey Demons Coburg Lions Collingwood Essendon Footscray Bulldogs Frankston Geelong Cats Gold Coast Suns GWS Giants North Melbourne Port Melbourne Richmond Sandringham St Kilda...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[onekickwonder]

When do all the teams training squads come out?

 

[bedford]

When do all the teams training squads come out?

AFL lists aren't even done lol

 

[The Tilt]

• The inclusion of NSW and Qld teams. This isn't a Vic problem, but has been made one. The league is too big and too expensive with these clubs in it. They need to peel off into another iteration of the NEAFL. That can be the four AFL reserves clubs, any interested standalones (Southport) and a few other sides that can service a higher level of rep footy across NSW and Qld. The northern academies are growing so there will be more and more undrafted youngsters

Still with this? I think a lot of the "VicBias" discourse is way over the top, but it's applicable here. Having the northern clubs competing in the NEAFL put them at a significant disadvantage relative to everyone else in terms of player development and preparedness: it was therefore an AFL problem and the only remedy for it was to have those clubs' reserves teams playing against those of Victorian-based clubs. I mean, really, are you proposing Tasmania's reserves play in the TSL, because "tHis IsN'T a vIC prOBlEm"?

 

[EconomicDecline]

St Scum will have about 8 Sandy players , god knows what they promise them

Have a sook

 

[Bunk Moreland]

I'll state this again for the final time: if the AFL wants grassroots and community clubs to play a role in developing players for the AFL, they owe it to these clubs to ensure their long-term survival is assured. These clubs matter to their communities and have every right to advocate for their own interests.

I'm not sure that's realistic. The AFL relies on all local clubs to produce its players. I'm not sure it can actually guarantee the survival of every single club however. The clubs are managed independently - it's hard to expect a body to completely guarantee something they don't manage.

How would it work? Manage your own business and just give us a call when you've blown it and we'll guarantee it and bail you out? That's not realistic.

The AFL doesn't cut cheques to directly fund any club outside of the AFL. Yet VFL clubs have asked for this, including the Bullants who completely rooted themselves than asked the AFL to simply write a cheque to bail them out.

I think the AFL could financially support the VFL clubs, but they would want something in return - which is the development measures. Perhaps it could be optional. Sign up to these development guidelines and receive x in funding. Otherwise do things your own way, but pay your own way.

By the by I think there's also a bit of selective memory about the AFL "taking over" the VFA. The VFA was absolutely rooted. I'm fairly sure for the last couple of years of VFA management, they had to waive the league fees because basically none of the clubs could afford to pay them. They signed onto the AFL's management because otherwise they all would've gone under.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Still with this? I think a lot of the "VicBias" discourse is way over the top, but it's applicable here. Having the northern clubs competing in the NEAFL put them at a significant disadvantage relative to everyone else in terms of player development and preparedness: it was therefore an AFL problem and the only remedy for it was to have those clubs' reserves teams playing against those of Victorian-based clubs. I mean, really, are you proposing Tasmania's reserves play in the TSL, because "tHis IsN'T a vIC prOBlEm"?

It's never really been explained what the "significant disadvantage" was. The northern AFL clubs were super competitive before their reserves joined the VFL. Finals, Grand Finals, premierships...

There's really no need to have them in the VFL. If they want to play AFL reserves then form a comp with the SA and WA clubs, who also want it apparently.

 

[AussieNick1999]

I'm not sure that's realistic. The AFL relies on all local clubs to produce its players. I'm not sure it can actually guarantee the survival of every single club however. The clubs are managed independently - it's hard to expect a body to completely guarantee something they don't manage.

How would it work? Manage your own business and just give us a call when you've blown it and we'll guarantee it and bail you out? That's not realistic.

The AFL doesn't cut cheques to directly fund any club outside of the AFL. Yet VFL clubs have asked for this, including the Bullants who completely rooted themselves than asked the AFL to simply write a cheque to bail them out.

I think the AFL could financially support the VFL clubs, but they would want something in return - which is the development measures. Perhaps it could be optional. Sign up to these development guidelines and receive x in funding. Otherwise do things your own way, but pay your own way.

By the by I think there's also a bit of selective memory about the AFL "taking over" the VFA. The VFA was absolutely rooted. I'm fairly sure for the last couple of years of VFA management, they had to waive the league fees because basically none of the clubs could afford to pay them. They signed onto the AFL's management because otherwise they all would've gone under.

You seem to be incredibly selective about which parts of my comments you respond to. I've outlined several times now why expecting grassroots clubs to prioritise player development above all else is problematic; people don't buy memberships, go to games, or volunteer for these clubs (most of which are reliant on volunteers) just to get players drafted. They do it out of passion for their community. If clubs focus on player development and neglect to represent their community, they stand to lose revenue because less people will be buying memberships and watching games.

I've also outlined what conditions and compensation I believe the AFL should agree to if it wants clubs to be part of this model, mainly ensuring that the VFL can be a level playing field and that all teams have a chance to succeed on and off the field. The AFL doesn't have to directly involved itself in the affairs of every VFL club, but inequity caused by the structure of the league is their responsibility. As for local footy, it's neither practical nor necessary for the AFL to involve itself heavily. Local football still enjoys a great deal of popularity and enjoy having some amount of autonomy free of the AFL's meddling.

Whether it was accepted by the VFA admin or not, the AFL did take over the management of the competition. The AFL had its own reserves league, they could have kept it if they wanted full control of the second tier of football. If they didn't want to accept some responsibility for the welfare of the standalone clubs, they shouldn't have involved themselves in the VFA.

I do like your idea that any AFL-imposed conditions be an optional arrangement. If clubs can afford to run things as they see fit then they should be free to do so. But there is value in these clubs being a part of the VFL whether they exist solely for player development or not. Frankston have provided several AFL players in the past, including during our horror years of the 2010s when we were weak on and off the field. This year we have a handful of players being talked about as serious draft prospects. Will they not be better players having played finals with us this year? Would they not be even better players if they win a premiership with us?

It's not as if player development and a competitive, balanced VFL are mutually exclusive. The standalone clubs will produce better players if they are competitive on the field and stable off the field.

 

[SeaSide]

There will be a Victorian 2nd tier competition IF and when the current the VFL is re designed

I, and many others, hope you're right.

 

[SeaSide]

I think a state league in Vic only really works in the long term for two reasons - AFL reserves and the development of undrafted players.

There’s really no widespread hunger for it beyond that. Football supporters don’t care for it in enough numbers and there’s only six clubs.

The only other path would be a merger / amalgamation of all the metro local leagues to produce city-wide top division/s so that it’s filled out with more clubs. But that’s a complete shakeup of everything local footy which would be hugely unlikely, at least in the short-medium term.

That makes sense.

 

[SeaSide]

Would the VFA / VFL and any of the clubs still be around if they didn’t take over the competition?

Most of them.

 

[Mr north man]

I, and many others, hope you're right.

If this competition comes make it a Saturday Night competition completely different to all competitions at AFL,Sate and Local levels.
You can cater for crowds who might support , attend ,play in or have to work during the day for a Saturday night game with a 7:20pm start it works well with Frankston.
But would need backing of $$$$ thru sponsorship,TV deal ect ect.

 

[bedford]

Have a sook

Probably all promised a rookie spot and we know they don't deliver

 

[Dogs till i die]

A sliding doors moment from 1980.

In the same week in June, two proposals were floated (not directly linked to each other).

In the meeting between the VFL and VFA on June 11, one of the items on the agenda was a merger of the VFL reserves competition with the VFA First Division competition. It was proposed that 12 VFA clubs would form an alignment with the VFL clubs (most likely in the way we have seen with the Box Hill Hawks), though it was never publicly revealed what the fate of the remaining 10 VFA would have been.

In November 1980, Prahran president Sir Ruper Steele revived the idea, calling for a 12-team competition consisting of the current First Division clubs plus Camberwell and Oakleigh, with the clubs being adopted by VFL clubs. Matches would still be played on Sundays and one match would be televised. VFL president Dr Allen Aylett suggested at the time that the future of the VFA clubs agreeing to Steele's plan would be guaranteed (suggesting there would be no relegation).

The day before this meeting, an article in the Age newspaper suggested that a six-division league was being proposed for metropolitan football, with promotion and relegation between each division, creating a pyramid system in local football in the same way that English soccer works. It was anticipated that the premier club in the top division would replace the wooden spooner in the VFA Second Division competition.

This means that it could have been possible for clubs like North Footscray, Templestowe or Mentone to rise up the ranks from, say, metro division 4 or 5 to eventually reach First Division in the VFA (with a fair bit of luck).

Let's say that a mix of the two ideas was agreed to (a merger of the VFL ressies and First Division, and the Second Division becoming the top tier of a new metro structure).

Hypothetically, the new structure could have become:

VFL - VFA - Metro Div 1 (ex-VFA Second Division) - other Metro Divisions

When the VFL went national in 1987, the VFA would have slotted in as the state league and kept this multi-divisional format, potentially to the current day!

Interesting to ponder.

It is interesting to ponder, the pyramid system has merit. As a follower of English football, their pyramid is very workable and highly protected. It is regionalised from the 6th tier down, why couldn't it work here? Being regionalised here beneath the 2nd tier would protect the history of the 5 metro comps in Melbourne (assuming the Ammos wouldn't want to be involved). Would help teams find their level and reduce the domination of a handful of clubs in each of our local comps.

 

[MortlockWatcher]

By the by I think there's also a bit of selective memory about the AFL "taking over" the VFA. The VFA was absolutely rooted. I'm fairly sure for the last couple of years of VFA management, they had to waive the league fees because basically none of the clubs could afford to pay them. They signed onto the AFL's management because otherwise they all would've gone under.

That is not quite true - the article in the Age that quotes that statement from April 1994 didn't provide the full details. The VFA said in the Round 1, 1994 edition of the Victorian Footballer (formerly the Recorder) that if any club was able to prove that they had eliminated their debt before the end of the season, then they would waive the $25,000 affiliation fee payable by the club for the season.

From what I can ascertain, the VFA didn't enforce the payment on any club as only Sandringham, Frankston, Preston, Springvale and Williamstown had debts of less than $90,000 at the start of the year and it was an unrealistic expectation for most clubs to actually be able to pay it.

I agree with you that the VFA being rooted and that without the VSFL (AFL) intervention, the VFA would have disbanded by the end of the decade.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

It is interesting to ponder, the pyramid system has merit. As a follower of English football, their pyramid is very workable and highly protected. It is regionalised from the 6th tier down, why couldn't it work here? Being regionalised here beneath the 2nd tier would protect the history of the 5 metro comps in Melbourne (assuming the Ammos wouldn't want to be involved). Would help teams find their level and reduce the domination of a handful of clubs in each of our local comps.

It is the way to go but nigh on impossible to implement now. The metro leagues would never go for it and it would require a complete revolution.

Btw soccer in Victoria works the same way (fully integrated pyramid).