WE NEED 12 TEAMS - WHO SHOULD GO ?

[Carey_is_King]

This whole competition would be more financially viable if there were 12 teams. Also, the standard of play would be better, because the 120-odd worst players would "wash" to the bottom and disappear.

My nominations would be, with apologies to their supporters;

Fremantle - out of their depth and don't look like making it in my lifetime.

Port - Don't know why they were admitted in the first place. Premierships in SA don't cut it.

St Kilda - Administration has been a basket case for as long as anyone can remember, and on-field performance has been crappy for nearly as long.

Geelong - Should amalgamate with Footscray. It would do them both good. Why should a hick town like Geelong have a team anyway ?

I know some of you will say that North are candidates because of their financial position, but they have been successful in spite of that. Think how much better they would be if there was more money to go around.

Bring on the comments

------------------
Trample the Weak,
Hurdle the Dead.

 

[Asgardian]

It's called the AFL, not VFL.

When Carey goes, North goes, besides they are already draining the financial coffers of the league

------------------
Chris

 

[lioness]

I am not saying I think these clubs SHOULD go, I am just saying I think these are the ones the AFL has in its sights:

*Hawthorn
*Bulldogs
*St Kilda
*Melbourne

None of the interstate clubs will ever fall, it will be more Victorian ones, which is a great shame. I think things should be left as is, for a very long time. Too much to wish for huh.

 

[Carey_is_King]

Originally posted by Asgardian:
It's called the AFL, not VFL.

When Carey goes, North goes, besides they are already draining the financial coffers of the league

So because we call it the AFL, we should keep the dregs from WA & SA in the comp ? At least the Eagles and the Crows have held their heads up and succeeded, albeit with State teams versus Victorian metropolitan teams.

North will struggle when Carey goes, no doubt, and I would not be surprised to see them disappear in 7-10 years time. I would not like them to go, so that Freo or Port can stay though. That would be trading gold for dog droppings.


------------------
Trample the Weak,
Hurdle the Dead.

 

[Darky]

CIK, you couldn't be more spot on about this!
At the risk of back-slapping, hats off to ya!

------------------
Evil witch, cast her spell, seducing you
She'll take you to the very depths of hell
Cannot move, no eyes to see, a statue now
For all eternity Medusa laughs at you
And you're her slave

 

[Carey_is_King]

Originally posted by Darky:
CIK, you couldn't be more spot on about this!
At the risk of back-slapping, hats off to ya!

Hey Darky,
Your signature (or is it a spell) sends shivers up my spine. Is it Darky as in "The dark side"?



------------------
Trample the Weak,
Hurdle the Dead.

 

[walshy1993]

if you wanted to do this to push for a truely even competition then maybe essendon should go

 

[sainter]

I probably shouldn't take the bait here but oh well.

Carey is King, there is no reason why any of the teams should go. Let the market dictate how many teams can survive.

If clubs are struggling financially in a 16 team competition, why should they get the right to continue at the expense of a club in a stronger financial position?

It is no coincidence that certain teams have been more innovative than others in an attempt to remain financially viable and good luck to them.

Let's hope some of these hard decisions don't turn out to be unsuccessful because I would hate for a team with 75 years history in this competition to lose their identity.

Why do I get the feeling that this is exactly the kind of response you wanted?



------------------
Fortius Quo Fidelius

 

[jod23]

PA - they never should have been there anyways.

Nth Melb - should merge with Sydney

Saints - they just suck.

Geelong - see Carey is Kings comments.

Cheers

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

cik your saying port shoud never have entered the comp well with sides like port coming into the comp has saved some vic clubs from going under.
i agree with sainter let the market decide who stays and goes the one thing for sure is it wont be port or any other interstate side.
cheers!

 

[Carey_is_King]

Originally posted by sainter:
I probably shouldn't take the bait here but oh well.

Carey is King, there is no reason why any of the teams should go. Let the market dictate how many teams can survive.

If clubs are struggling financially in a 16 team competition, why should they get the right to continue at the expense of a club in a stronger financial position?

It is no coincidence that certain teams have been more innovative than others in an attempt to remain financially viable and good luck to them.

Let's hope some of these hard decisions don't turn out to be unsuccessful because I would hate for a team with 75 years history in this competition to lose their identity.

Why do I get the feeling that this is exactly the kind of response you wanted?

Sainter,
Believe it or not, this was not a bait, and I was not seeking any particular type of response. I don't agree that the most financial clubs should automatically remain, simply for that reason, but I will read the replies with interest.



------------------
Trample the Weak,
Hurdle the Dead.

 

[Carey_is_King]

Originally posted by walshy1993:
if you wanted to do this to push for a truely even competition then maybe essendon should go

Walshy,
Believe it or not, this is not about Essendon. (Not everything is, you know)
Your club has risen above the "evenness" but that is a transient thing, and you will come back to the field as certainly as night follows day. I am suggesting the AFL would be more financial, and the standard of competition would be better with 12 clubs. It has nothing to do with current ladder positions.



------------------
Trample the Weak,
Hurdle the Dead.

 

[FF]

Norths success has been the last 10 or so years overall thier history has not been flash. If night follows day and with their success now and still bugger all supporters what happens when 10 years failure beckons???
The clubs that garner the most support now will survive in the future. That is why the augument that Essendon has so many bandwagon teenage support makes me laugh. These kids become adults have children and who do they support? Richmond still has massive support gained from the 70's. Mergers will become fact I think.

 

[JUBJUB]

Well WCE are pretty much dead anyway and Freo are just embarrassing .

The other one is North which won't last much longer if they keep pissing off there supporters by playing everywhere but Melbourne.

Stkilda will be gone if Blighty fails.

------------------
"Absatively Posilutely"

 

[Hunter21]

Carey is King, Maybe the AFl should try what the FA do over in England you have two compertitons and who ever finish in the last three spots of the Afl ladder gets relegated and the top three teams form the 1st Divison
get promoted into the AFL league. To get 16 teams in the 1st Divison teams might come from the VFL or interstate comps. Having said all this i think that the AFL should stay as it is. But i thought i may as well replay to see if you thought this method would work or not.

 

[SpecialBruce]

North, Geelong, Richmond, Hawthorn will all go.

 

[Snarl!!]

someone said north melbourne should merge with sydney

NO WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let them merge with oblivion, then everybody would be happy

 

[Ron]

Whether we like it or not its the AFL not VFL. The interstate clubs licence fees have saved a few Melbourne based teams.
The AFL should not financially support any team.
Before any of you carry on, Brisbane and Sydneys extra salary cap is to keep players.
Just look at some of the Melbourne based teams salary cap rorting.
The teams that can't live in the business world, will go.
North have major financial problems, a crippling accumulated debt.Successful on the field means absolutley nothing.
Bulldogs. Ditto above.
Maybe these 2 can merge, both Western suburbs teams.
The others are still in a reasonable fiancial postion.
The AFL should get tough though. I don't like my teams annual return lowered because we are proping up teams.

 

[Mr Ripper]

Glass house dwelling Carey_is_King threw this stone:
This whole competition would be more financially viable if there were 12 teams. Also, the standard of play would be better, because the 120-odd worst players would "wash" to the bottom and disappear.

North, St. Kilda, W. Dogs, Hawthorn and Melbourne should all merge and become the Melbourne Mixtures.

Hey Presto! 12 teams!

 

[Davo]

St.Kilda
North Melbourne
Fremantle
Geelong

Piss on the weak
Shit on the dead!

 

[Carey_is_King]

Originally posted by Mr Ripper:
North, St. Kilda, W. Dogs, Hawthorn and Melbourne should all merge and become the Melbourne Mixtures.

Hey Presto! 12 teams!

It wasn't a stone from the glasshouse, it was a suggestion which I thought might provoke some intelligent discussion, but obviously that was too difficult for you. For your benefit, I will float a "Who do we hate the most in our one-eyed stupidity?" topic. Stay tuned.

------------------
Trample the Weak,
Hurdle the Dead.

[This message has been edited by Carey_is_King (edited 17 December 2000).]

 

[Carey_is_King]

Originally posted by JUBJUB:
Well WCE are pretty much dead anyway and Freo are just embarrassing .

The other one is North which won't last much longer if they keep pissing off there supporters by playing everywhere but Melbourne.

Stkilda will be gone if Blighty fails.

JubJub,
I agree that North are in danger of alienating their Vic-based supporters, and I have already said that I would not be surprised to see North disappear in 7-10 years. This post was not about pushing the North survival case actually.



------------------
Trample the Weak,
Hurdle the Dead.

 

[Mr Ripper]

Carey_is_King came back with:
It wasn't a stone from the glasshouse, it was a suggestion which I thought might provoke some intelligent discussion

Really? I thought it was a garden variety troll and I therefore treated with the brevity it deserved.

 

[Frodo]

A 14 team competition makes more sense. Making it a 26 round competition and extending the season by 4 weeks brings balance and four weeks of extra revenue for the weaker clubs. Last season showed that the season could start earlier.
Two mergers would be a good solution.
The interstate clubs are in a good position but I would like to see fixtures arranged so that the Eagles and Dockers play 2 at home then two away and stay in Melbourne for a week at least three times a season. This would cut down the travel and give a chance for Vic based supporters to see the teams train.

 

[Carey_is_King]

Originally posted by Ron:
Whether we like it or not its the AFL not VFL. The interstate clubs licence fees have saved a few Melbourne based teams.
The AFL should not financially support any team.
Before any of you carry on, Brisbane and Sydneys extra salary cap is to keep players.
Just look at some of the Melbourne based teams salary cap rorting.
The teams that can't live in the business world, will go.
North have major financial problems, a crippling accumulated debt.Successful on the field means absolutley nothing.
Bulldogs. Ditto above.
Maybe these 2 can merge, both Western suburbs teams.
The others are still in a reasonable fiancial postion.
The AFL should get tough though. I don't like my teams annual return lowered because we are proping up teams.

Ron,

I agree the AFL should not prop up a club, but don't tell me that the millions poured into the Swans in the early years was not exactly that. The AFL was determined to expand the competition, and therefore saw it as an investment in the future of football in NSW - fair enough. Lest you think that the AFL has propped up North, I would point out that they have underwritten North's venture into the NSW market, because that suited the AFL's current plans to further extend the competition, not because they felt like being benevolent. In no way was it the charity that some supporters of other clubs would like to think. I fail to see how this deprives your club of anything, by the way.
The AFL, after all, is the clubs, and all have agreed to what the AFL has done - except Sydney, whose chairman was in a serious conflict of interest position and worked hard to scuttle it.

My point, however is that we need to consider more than the finances. The overall playing standard would be improved with fewer teams.



------------------
Trample the Weak,
Hurdle the Dead.