Opinion What will footy look like after Covid-19?

[dogwatch]

Seemed like this was a topic that warranted its own thread.

As Rohan Connolly remarked in an article this morning there is an army of under-utilised footy journos and TV-based ex-players (presumably sticking to TV because they are only semi-literate) who have nothing to write about. So they're thinking about what comes after all this. These are dangerous times when these idiots start thinking up ideas to improve the game! "Improving the game" is at times a euphemism for pushing their own agenda, an agenda that is often curiously beneficial to the club they represented in their playing days.

Not all ideas are utterly stupid. Some have merit. But as a footy traditionalist I am worried. I feel that these are times when the opportunists get cracking in the hope they can get up an idea that would never get a look-in during normal times.

Already we've had suggestions that we should have 16 minute quarters forever (34 yo Heath Shaw came out and pumped this one the other day because it would mean he can struggle through games for another year or two). That we need to expand the bench and reintroduce the substitute if we are having a condensed season with sides playing games as often as 4-5 days apart. Or that we should have a best-of-three GF to raise more money to pay off debts (Leigh Matthews). No doubt you've heard others, like shorter playing lists etc.

There's been talk of swingeing changes to the NGA rules in the Jamarra thread. I'm hoping this is just the usual Bulldog paranoia ... but considering our battered history we have good reason to feel paranoid.

Then there are barrows being pushed at a more fundamental level, like fewer clubs (posters on this board have suggested getting rid of GWS, GCS or ... whoever their least favourite team is) or relocating North to Tasmania (Caroline Wilson claimed this was something being discussed behind closed doors in the AFL, but Connolly claims she was just fishing for clicks) or that two clubs from Victoria (not the usual suspects we're told) were in deep trouble.

So here's a thread to post your ideas, your fears, latest rumours and generally have a good self-isolated rant about those iniquitous meddlers in the greatest game on the planet. Or about the die-hard traditionalists, if that's your view.

To kick things off I've summarised how I view those ideas/rumours I've seen so far. As a former member of the consulting community (yes, yes, I apologise) I thought it would be appropriate to chart these on a two dimensional quadrant diagram, as below. The dimensions I've chosen are Probability (scale of 0-100%) and Desirability (scale of +5 to -5, where +5 is something mind-bogglingly brilliant and long overdue and -5 is something hair-tearingly destructive that will ruin our game forever). Needless to say it's a subjective judgement for both scales.

[The chart has been inserted below.]

Just in summary, here are the things I've mentioned so far, in no special order:

• Make 16 minute quarters a permanent thing
• Play a best of three GF series
• Expand the bench, reintroduce subs
• Restructure the NGA arrangements now rather than in a year or two (meaning Jamarra is snatched from us)
• Permanently reduce playing lists but increase flexibility of moving up players from state leagues etc
• Reduce the AFL by two clubs (take your pick which ones)
• Relocate North to Tasmania

Fire away.

 

[BallaratBulldog]

Normal quarters at normal start times
Leave the GF alone
Expand bench/sub would be okay I guess with change in rotations.
Let us take Jamarra then do what they need too
I don't think anyone would want reduce teams after Fitzroy.

I just want it as it was beforehand really.

 

[ScragCity]

Having the AFL take Jamarra away from us would really top off such a great year.

 

[Sharkey66]

The wildcard round before finals was another topic brought up last week

 

[Norm De Guerre]

Game wise, I dont think that much will change on field.

Off field is another story. The competition is about to go into an extended period of forced austerity and I think that the changes off-field will be enormous. Even though TV rights are seen as the financial backbone of the competition, we have no idea whether Foxfooty and 7 will survive. Both companies were in precarious positions prior to this crisis and will now be haemorrhaging money at an increasing pace with every day there is no footy. As I understand it, Sevens situation is so dire that its market value is now something like 1/40th of what it changed hands for only a decade ago. In-fact it if you have $140 million dollars laying about you can buy it for yourself right now as that is its current market value. So when I see comments that the future of every team is assured going forward because the broadcast agreement calls for it. I just laugh and say sure it is...

No matter what shakes out. I think there will be a dramatic reduction in the player salary cap and days of clubs spending every dime that comes in the door in a never ending race of one-upmanship when it comes to football related staff levels are all but done. Its a good thing that we have a tradition of relative frugality to fall back as a club as its going to be the new normal right across the game.

 

[stmookeyj]

Seemed like this was a topic that warranted its own thread.

As Rohan Connolly remarked in an article this morning there is an army of under-utilised footy journos and TV-based ex-players (presumably sticking to TV because they are only semi-literate) who have nothing to write about. So they're thinking about what comes after all this. These are dangerous times when these idiots start thinking up ideas to improve the game! "Improving the game" is at times a euphemism for pushing their own agenda, an agenda that is often curiously beneficial to the club they represented in their playing days.

Not all ideas are utterly stupid. Some have merit. But as a footy traditionalist I am worried. I feel that these are times when the opportunists get cracking in the hope they can get up an idea that would never get a look-in during normal times.

Already we've had suggestions that we should have 16 minute quarters forever (34 yo Heath Shaw came out and pumped this one the other day because it would mean he can struggle through games for another year or two). That we need to expand the bench and reintroduce the substitute if we are having a condensed season with sides playing games as often as 4-5 days apart. Or that we should have a best-of-three GF to raise more money to pay off debts (Leigh Matthews). No doubt you've heard others, like shorter playing lists etc.

There's been talk of swingeing changes to the NGA rules in the Jamarra thread. I'm hoping this is just the usual Bulldog paranoia ... but considering our battered history we have good reason to feel paranoid.

Then there are barrows being pushed at a more fundamental level, like fewer clubs (posters on this board have suggested getting rid of GWS, GCS or ... whoever their least favourite team is) or relocating North to Tasmania (Caroline Wilson claimed this was something being discussed behind closed doors in the AFL, but Connolly claims she was just fishing for clicks) or that two clubs from Victoria (not the usual suspects we're told) were in deep trouble.

So here's a thread to post your ideas, your fears, latest rumours and generally have a good self-isolated rant about those iniquitous meddlers in the greatest game on the planet. Or about the die-hard traditionalists, if that's your view.

To kick things off I've summarised how I view those ideas/rumours I've seen so far. As a former member of the consulting community (yes, yes, I apologise) I thought it would be appropriate to chart these on a two dimensional quadrant diagram, as below. The dimensions I've chosen are Probability (scale of 0-10) and Desirability (scale of +5 to -5, where +5 is something mind-bogglingly brilliant and long overdue and -5 is something hair-tearingly destructive that will ruin our game forever). Needless to say it's a subjective judgement for both sc

[CHART GOES HERE - to follow. I'll launch the thread now so we can get discussion under way. I'll chuck in the chart later.]

Just in summary, here are the things I've mentioned so far, in no special order:

• Make 16 minute quarters a permanent thing
• Play a best of three GF series
• Expand the bench, reintroduce subs
• Restructure the NGA arrangements now rather than in a year or two (meaning Jamarra is snatched from us)
• Permanently reduce playing lists but increase flexibility of moving up players from state leagues etc
• Reduce the AFL by two clubs (take your pick which ones)
• Relocate North to Tasmania

Fire away.

16 MIN QTRS: No but can see an adjustment to how time on is calculated
GF: Remain at one
EXPANDED BENCH/SUB: Given the probability of reduced playing lists I'd suggest no to the Sub. If they do expand the bench they'll need to increase or abolish the interchange cap which goes against the thinking of many, therefore it's a no from me.
NGA: Suggest that was going to be tweaked anyway, this has just accelerated the discussion.
PLAYING LISTS: They may go down to 35 but I fear about where excess players are going to play, especially given more second and third tier Clubs will end up like Preston when this shakes out, and the future of stand alone AFL Reserves teams are under threat again due to cost cutting.
CLUB REDUCTION: Won't happen now that finances are seemingly secured, hence everyone will get funded.
RELOCATION: Again won't happen. People aren't stupid enough to realise that transplanted teams, particularly in the short term, aren't their team. Own team to me means own identity, not transplanted.

 

[Virgin Dog]

For the AFL as a whole, I think the changes I wouldn't be mad about would be:

• Cut quarter length back to 16min plus time on (in the interest of reducing injuries)
• If we don't cut quarter length back, then either expand the interchange cap, or remove it entirely
• Reduce playing list size for the main list, but massively expand the rookie list (I'm talking 15 - 20 players) with most featuring in the club's affiliated state league side. This leads to situations where we could have played Gardner without officially drafting him, or Gowers/Hayes could have played for the senior side earlier since their form at VFL level justified it.
• Cut league size back to 16. I recognize that it's hypocritical for any Dogs fan to suggest this considering our history with proposed mergers, but I can see merit in this idea with the AFL's finances in such a precarious position. It won't happen since the bottom feeders (from a financial perspective) are in development areas like QLD and NSW, while clubs like North have really turned their financial situation around in the last decade, so it would be pretty rough to relocate them now.
  • I think if this idea was to go forward, it would be to merge Melbourne and St Kilda, while relocating North to Tasmania. Don't downsize other states; this is a national competition, so we need other states being represented. Brings it back to 8 Victorian clubs in a 16-team competition.

Most of all, if I had to choose, I think I'd go with reducing playing lists by a significant amount while increasing rookie lists (therefore giving clubs more flexibility to handle injuries to important players, while also reducing salary cap spending), as well as increasing the interchange cap.

 

[dogwatch]

Here's what I came up with in terms of desirability and likelihood. I can add other ideas easily enough. Norm mentioned TV rights which is a great discussion topic in its own right. And Sharkey mentioned the wildcard round. There were probably some others ...



As I said this is entirely subjective, so you may view it very differently. Basically it means that anything less than zero on the y-axis (below the horizontal line) I consider to be a bad idea. Not hard to work out that I'm a traditionalist!

Also anything left of the vertical line I consider less than a 50% chance of actually happening.

The assumption here is not that these will happen in 2020 (although that's clearly a possibility and in one instance has already happened) but that the crisis will prompt the AFL to make long term structural changes to the game and/or the competition.

The outlier is the NGA change which the AFL had already given strong indications was going to happen. It was overdue for revision. I've assumed in this chart that the NGA changes they make will be for the better but we won't really know until we see the detail.

 

[Yojimbo]

These are my principal changes for after virus footy:

1: Split the ground into thirds using the back edges of the centre square extended fully
across the field.
1a- Four players from each team locked into each third, designated by armbands.
1b- Three interchange gates leading to each zone, used by both teams.
1c- No more bounce and boundary throw ins scrapped with the boundary umpire bringing
the ball in twenty metres and tossing it up, thus freeing up the field umpire to be better
positioned to pay free kicks.
1d- Backward kicks automatic play on to encourage forward momentum.
1e- Players wishing to rest forward or back can swap arm bands or do so through the
appropriate interchange gate.

2: Scrap the goal square and kick out from behind the goal line between the two point
posts.

These changes allow the AFL to maintain the 6-6-6, but encourage more open space and
reduces the effect of a full ground press a blight on a game with no offside rule. Coaches
will hate the separation of lines and one on one contests so in compensation they each
get a drone with a microphone to relay messages to their players, like an automated
runner. (That should give them the shits big time)

Effectively 8-20-8 in motion with 8 players locked into the back and forward thirds of the
ground, and four each on the bench as normal.

 

[dogwatch]

Adelaide Crows could rename themselves the Adelaide Corvids in the hope that opposition players will keep their distance.

 

[Jeff 1975]

Regards of how many teams. Play each-other once

Keep the boards closed thus eliminating Adelaide, GWS, Sydney and a few others

Enhance the VFL

 

[grassman75]

These are my principal changes for after virus footy:

1: Split the ground into thirds using the back edges of the centre square extended fully
across the field.1a- Four players from each team locked into each third, designated by armbands.
1b- Three interchange gates leading to each zone, used by both teams.
1c- No more bounce and boundary throw ins scrapped with the boundary umpire bringing
the ball in twenty metres and tossing it up, thus freeing up the field umpire to be better
positioned to pay free kicks.
1d- Backward kicks automatic play on to encourage forward momentum.
1e- Players wishing to rest forward or back can swap arm bands or do so through the
appropriate interchange gate.

2: Scrap the goal square and kick out from behind the goal line between the two point
posts.

These changes allow the AFL to maintain the 6-6-6, but encourage more open space and
reduces the effect of a full ground press a blight on a game with no offside rule. Coaches
will hate the separation of lines and one on one contests so in compensation they each
get a drone with a microphone to relay messages to their players, like an automated
runner. (That should give them the shits big time)

Effectively 8-20-8 in motion with 8 players locked into the back and forward thirds of the
ground, and four each on the bench as normal.

Instead of armbands, how about we go with bibs - FB, CHB, LBP RBP C1, C2, C3 etc etc, When you get the ball, you have to stop within one step, this will alleviate the wear and tear on the players as they wont have to run too far. When standing on the mark, the defender can be no closer than 2 metres and can stand on one leg and stretch over to try and put of the kicker.

 

[Yojimbo]

Instead of armbands, how about we go with bibs - FB, CHB, LBP RBP C1, C2, C3 etc etc, When you get the ball, you have to stop within one step, this will alleviate the wear and tear on the players as they wont have to run too far. When standing on the mark, the defender can be no closer than 2 metres and can stand on one leg and stretch over to try and put of the kicker.

You need a bib to catch the dribble G-Man, . They need to make the coaches change
their approach to the game and just stop asking and being nice. They have had ample
opportunity, but somehow always default to control. They have changed the way teams
generate scores and people accept the lack of scoring as long as the game is close. The
Bounce and the Boundary Throw Ins fly in the face of occupational health and safety,
Nic Nat did his last knee trying to get to a short throw in and if they bothered to track
the landing point it would present horrible results. Gareth John had his throat crushed
by Simon Madden's knee after the bounce hovered over his head leaving him exposed,
Shaun Rehn slipped on a bounce pad and missed over a year of football when he was
in his football prime, sadly there are too many examples, change it as it makes no
difference when you watch AFLW they don't bounce and I have never heard a caller to
SEN bemoan the lack of a centre bounce as a detriment to the game.

Note: I have a WC bib made up just for you, you don't need to be a "Wheel Of Fortune"
champion to figure it out.

 

[grassman75]

I was always WD - the shittiest player on court. When they play short, thew WD is the first one gone - when we were short, we got rid of centre...that's how good my netball career went!

 

[dogwatch]

OK we are one week into April. If the world hadn't been turned upside down by Covid19 we'd now be celebrating a bruising but redemptive victory over the Giants at Manuka last Friday and eagerly looking forward to our clash with North next weekend.

But we aren't.

Instead we are glumly wondering when we'll see real footy being played again (not just replays of classics), whether we'll be allowed to watch it from our reserved seats at Marvel and what that form of footy will even look like.

Optimistic Dog asked this afternoon whether we could get the season under way again sooner rather than later if we were successful with a range of countermeasures rolled out across Australia. To save rehashing it all here, here's a link to my response to that question. I'm not claiming to be an authority on this. They're just my own views.

So to kick the can a little further down the road here's a few further thoughts. Feel free to add your own. Treat it as a brainstorming session if you like. We can then analyse the ideas and scenarios raised in a bit more detail.

Let's keep this thread a footy discussion though, except where we need to reference a Covid19 development to clarify or expand on a point relating to the footy. If you want to discuss the disease and debate how we're dealing with it as a nation please do that in the other thread.

1. Optimistic scenario - footy resumes in 2020. We now have a glimpse of the early trajectory of the Covid19 outbreak in Australia. Early signs are encouraging but nobody in authority is suggesting we take the foot off the brake any time soon for fear of "the second wave". So the most optimistic I think we could be would be a resumption of footy in about July. Realistically a resumption this year - if it happens at all - would be more like September. I say July at the earliest because I think authorities would want to see the case rate remain flat throughout April and May before cautiously giving a green light to some heavily controlled form of resumption of big sports. Then it would take the best part of a month to gear up for games. Many (but certainly not all) staff would need to resume work, broadcasters would need to gear up, stadiums would need to be readied, everybody in the sport would need to understand and follow the strict rules of operation and of course players would need to resume training together for at least a couple of weeks, preferably a month. I simply cannot see a way such an early resumption of footy would be played in front of crowds. For a start how do you trace 40,000 contacts if a spectator tests positive two days after the game?

If we started in early September (still optimistic IMO) we would have 12-13 weeks before Christmas to play 16 rounds. On average therefore, sides would have to play a game every 5 days or so. Is that feasible? Maybe but it will require a massive amount of goodwill on all sides and some significant adjustments to the playing conditions. We can discuss those details later. That would leave us 3-4 weeks for a finals series to be concluded in the heat of late December - just before Christmas! Presumably most games would be played in the cool of the evenings. I still think it's unlikely they'd let crowds watch it live but who knows - December is still 8 months away and we've seen how rapidly things can change. All of this will be very much subject to what governments will allow. It certainly won't be solely the AFL's choice when it can resume.

2. No comp in 2021 but a modified version to try to claw back some lost revenue. If the above is not possible what we could see instead might be a series of exhibition matches. Just as an example they could run a lightning comp with heavily modified rules and durations, possibly in three conferences of six, each in their own "bubble". There would be 15 games (5 per club) played over about two weeks in October or November (one conference in each of say Perth, Adelaide, Sydney). No conference finals but the top two from each conference go to the national finals played in a similar fashion in Melbourne. The only difference would be the top two sides in the final series end up playing a grand final at the MCG.

Naturally there are many, many ways such a comp could be constructed. That's just one idea. It would then lead into an almost back-to-normal season in 2021 ...

3. More likely scenario - footy returns in 2021. Given the difficulties and uncertainties for 2020 I think it's more likely that we won't see footy return in the form we know it until March 2021. I'm hoping by then we have a reasonably strong grip on the outbreak, we have a vaccine on the way or even being administered to the masses, people are getting back to work, to coffee shops, restaurants and pubs and everybody will be desperate to get back to something like "normal". Footy will be a great way to do that and I reckon public support will be massive. A big question is whether (or when) they will allow crowds to watch and what sort of constraints there will be. That's so far into the future it's impossible to predict right now but it'd be fantastic to see the MCG heaving with 90,000 fans again.

There should be no reason for massive changes to the playing of the game in 2021 but as I suggested in the OP there will be some who will try to use it as an opportunity to alter the format somehow (bench size, subs, rotation limits, shorter quarters, etc). The bigger differences will probably be off the field. Things like size of playing lists, rookies, state league call-ups, footy operations staffing levels and so on.

4. Worst case scenario - there will be no resumption of footy until 2022. This could happen if ...

... naah, let's not go there.

 

[Optimistic Dog]

OK we are one week into April. If the world hadn't been turned upside down by Covid19 we'd now be celebrating a bruising but redemptive victory over the Giants at Manuka last Friday and eagerly looking forward to our clash with North next weekend.

But we aren't.

Instead we are glumly wondering when we'll see real footy being played again (not just replays of classics), whether we'll be allowed to watch it from our reserved seats at Marvel and what that form of footy will even look like.

Optimistic Dog asked this afternoon whether we could get the season under way again sooner rather than later if we were successful with a range of countermeasures rolled out across Australia. To save rehashing it all here, here's a link to my response to that question. I'm not claiming to be an authority on this. They're just my own views.

So to kick the can a little further down the road here's a few further thoughts. Feel free to add your own. Treat it as a brainstorming session if you like. We can then analyse the ideas and scenarios raised in a bit more detail.

Let's keep this thread a footy discussion though, except where we need to reference a Covid19 development to clarify or expand on a point relating to the footy. If you want to discuss the disease and debate how we're dealing with it as a nation please do that in the other thread.

1. Optimistic scenario - footy resumes in 2020. We now have a glimpse of the early trajectory of the Covid19 outbreak in Australia. Early signs are encouraging but nobody in authority is suggesting we take the foot off the brake any time soon for fear of "the second wave". So the most optimistic I think we could be would be a resumption of footy in about July. Realistically a resumption this year - if it happens at all - would be more like September. I say July at the earliest because I think authorities would want to see the case rate remain flat throughout April and May before cautiously giving a green light to some heavily controlled form of resumption of big sports. Then it would take the best part of a month to gear up for games. Many (but certainly not all) staff would need to resume work, broadcasters would need to gear up, stadiums would need to be readied, everybody in the sport would need to understand and follow the strict rules of operation and of course players would need to resume training together for at least a couple of weeks, preferably a month. I simply cannot see a way such an early resumption of footy would be played in front of crowds. For a start how do you trace 40,000 contacts if a spectator tests positive two days after the game?

If we started in early September (still optimistic IMO) we would have 12-13 weeks before Christmas to play 16 rounds. On average therefore, sides would have to play a game every 5 days or so. Is that feasible? Maybe but it will require a massive amount of goodwill on all sides and some significant adjustments to the playing conditions. We can discuss those details later. That would leave us 3-4 weeks for a finals series to be concluded in the heat of late December - just before Christmas! Presumably most games would be played in the cool of the evenings. I still think it's unlikely they'd let crowds watch it live but who knows - December is still 8 months away and we've seen how rapidly things can change. All of this will be very much subject to what governments will allow. It certainly won't be solely the AFL's choice when it can resume.

2. No comp in 2021 but a modified version to try to claw back some lost revenue. If the above is not possible what we could see instead might be a series of exhibition matches. Just as an example they could run a lightning comp with heavily modified rules and durations, possibly in three conferences of six, each in their own "bubble". There would be 15 games (5 per club) played over about two weeks in October or November (one conference in each of say Perth, Adelaide, Sydney). No conference finals but the top two from each conference go to the national finals played in a similar fashion in Melbourne. The only difference would be the top two sides in the final series end up playing a grand final at the MCG.

Naturally there are many, many ways such a comp could be constructed. That's just one idea. It would then lead into an almost back-to-normal season in 2021 ...

3. More likely scenario - footy returns in 2021. Given the difficulties and uncertainties for 2020 I think it's more likely that we won't see footy return in the form we know it until March 2021. I'm hoping by then we have a reasonably strong grip on the outbreak, we have a vaccine on the way or even being administered to the masses, people are getting back to work, to coffee shops, restaurants and pubs and everybody will be desperate to get back to something like "normal". Footy will be a great way to do that and I reckon public support will be massive. A big question is whether (or when) they will allow crowds to watch and what sort of constraints there will be. That's so far into the future it's impossible to predict right now but it'd be fantastic to see the MCG heaving with 90,000 fans again.

There should be no reason for massive changes to the playing of the game in 2021 but as I suggested in the OP there will be some who will try to use it as an opportunity to alter the format somehow (bench size, subs, rotation limits, shorter quarters, etc). The bigger differences will probably be off the field. Things like size of playing lists, rookies, state league call-ups, footy operations staffing levels and so on.

4. Worst case scenario - there will be no resumption of footy until 2022. This could happen if ...

... naah, let's not go there.

Dogwatch, I did not want to believe your doom and gloom and was hopeful for some footy soon. It could be years before crowds return if the NSW premier and states follows through with the headline below. If this happens as others have put we will have more than footy to worry about everyone will be broke.




NSW coronavirus social-distancing to stay 'until vaccine is found', Premier Gladys Berejiklian says

 

[Freshwater]

Dogwatch, I did not want to believe your doom and gloom and was hopeful for some footy soon. It could be years before crowds return if the NSW premier and states follows through with the headline below. If this happens as others have put we will have more than footy to worry about everyone will be broke.




NSW coronavirus social-distancing to stay 'until vaccine is found', Premier Gladys Berejiklian says

Well that’s just rubbish. Because a vaccine whilst good, has never been the main way humans overcome viruses. Strong immune systems have always been the only way that viruses can be overcome. Because every year there will be a slight variant on any flu or virus and vaccines are useless to the new strain. We will all have to function at some level of normality by spring time or the economy will be so screwed that Corona won’t be our main worry.

 

[dogwatch]

It was very heartening to read that the Western Bulldogs can go it alone without financial support from the AFL during the shutdown, at least for a few months. As others have said it's a credit to the astute management of the club over the last decade. The odd premiership wouldn't have hurt our finances either.

I haven't read much about the details of how the AFL is planning to bail out clubs. What I'm interested in knowing are the trade-offs in going it alone. Could we (or should we) have put our hand and asked for help, thereby preserving our cash reserves? How are we better off in managing it ourselves?

The only benefits I can think of are (1) the AFL doesn't get to examine every aspect of our books and perhaps dictate where we must make cuts and (2) the message it sends the footy public that we are no longer a basket case (i.e. the good PR we get from it).

Are there any other benefits? Do clubs that seek AFL help have to repay everything in due course or is it effectively a grant from the AFL? Are there any other incentives for clubs going it alone?

The down side is obviously that we will lose much of our precious cash surplus, if not all of it.

 

[ScragCity]

I just can't imagine a world in which we can go back to having a live audience watching football games by 2021. So if it's the case that games can be played but without audience attendance then the question becomes: can football still be profitable? I'd have to imagine that it can't given how heavily clubs rely on memberships and how much they would lose in ticket sales...

 

[dogwatch]

In answer to BrisDog 's question, what's the latest on AFL resumption plans?

The short season with several hubs in eligible states still seems to have the front running. Dangerfield was talking it up in an article in the CT this morning. 16 rounds over 10 weeks.

I think the AFL's cautious approach is a lot more responsible than the NRL's ambitious statement "we're ready to go on 28 May". Good luck to the NRL if they can manage it (and it's fine to be aspirational). They are probably a bit more financially desperate than the AFL so that might be driving them. They have an awful lot of detail to sort out before it can go ahead, not least of which is approval from the NSW government. Gladys has been pretty guarded about it and certainly hasn't given it unqualified support.

If a hub system proceeded for the AFL in 2020 it would presumably be behind locked doors (no crowds). It'll be interesting if the Vic Govt denies permission because it will mean all 18 clubs will be playing their games outside Victoria. Maybe Perth, Adelaide and Brisbane? Given that Dan Andrews has been among the more hard-line premiers this is a real possibility, but I expect they'll work something out to enable games to happen in Melbourne.

Timing of a resumption is a good question. I'd expect July is the more likely target but June might be possible. That's certainly a better prospect than we had a month ago. I think I heard the other day someone saying they don't want to resume for a round or two and then have to suspend it again. They need a fair degree of certainty. So much will depend on how the various governments decide to ease the lockdown and whether there's any hint of a second wave. If there is it might kill off the season altogether.

Anyone got any news updates on this?

 

[Chicago1]

I think the AFL should only have one hub, Melbourne, and have only Victorian teams play since going interstate is not allowed. Perhaps someone could come up with a new name for an all Victorian football league. Any ideas?

 

[BrisDog]

Sydney putting there hand up to be the hub for a mini season this year apparently:

Sydney 'should be considered' for hub as AFL prepares to set return date

Sydney would make a great location for an AFL quarantine hub and should be considered, Swans chief executive Tom Harley said

www.theguardian.com

 

[dogwatch]

AFL 'looking at every possibility' for quarantine hubs as states line up to play host

The idea of the AFL setting up quarantine hubs so it can restart its season is gathering support, with the league looking at every state as a contender to be a host.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Guido]

Does anyone remember a controversy about 20 years ago about whether or not TV networks could run virtual advertising over banks of crowds?

The AFL canned the idea, but I think something like that would actually really help the optics (and bring in some more cash).

I can't believe how different it felt in round 1 - 2016 GF was on Fox earlier, IMO that win just wouldn't have felt anywhere near the same under the current circumstances.

 

[dogwatch]

Does anyone remember a controversy about 20 years ago about whether or not TV networks could run virtual advertising over banks of crowds?

The AFL canned the idea, but I think something like that would actually really help the optics (and bring in some more cash).

I can't believe how different it felt in round 1 - 2016 GF was on Fox earlier, IMO that win just wouldn't have felt anywhere near the same under the current circumstances.

It drives home how important a part of the whole sport the paying public are. We don't only pay hundreds or thousands of dollars a year to go along and watch it live (plus more to watch it on TV) but we are an indispensable part of the spectacle itself.

Without us the game is nothing. Now there's a dangerous thought.