Which clubs should of been let into the AFL?

Aussie Joe

Premiership Player
Joined
May 5, 2006
Posts
3,465
Likes
607
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
SF Giants, Everton
Thread starter #1
I have said a number of times that new and soulless clubs should not of been let into the AFL. They have no accountability to past players or long life supporters. If we could do it all over again would you let West Coast and Adelaide back in, or other successful and established clubs like Claremont and Norwood.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

kane249

New cup, who dis?
Joined
Oct 27, 2006
Posts
39,988
Likes
36,999
Location
Behind enemy Lines
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Sth Freo, Liverpool, Chicago Bulls
#4
Yes nevermind the fact the cash these "franchise teams" make are used to prop up clubs like Carlton :rolleyes:

Without the 'Franchise' 'corporatpe' teams, there wouldnt be 10 teams left in Victoria today
 

Smyth94

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 14, 2006
Posts
6,096
Likes
322
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Arsenal, Oilers
#5
Claremont and Norwood would've been fairtale stuff if included into the AFL.

We have to look at the reality though - The aforementioned teams have huge rivalries with their respective SANFL and WAFL clubs therefore an inclusion of these teams would've alienated all the potential supporters of the new AFL club. A team was made from scratch so everyone could support it and not just one section of the population.
 

dinomite

Senior List
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Posts
154
Likes
0
AFL Club
West Coast
#6
I have said a number of times that new and soulless clubs should not of been let into the AFL. They have no accountability to past players or long life supporters. If we could do it all over again would you let West Coast and Adelaide back in, or other successful and established clubs like Claremont and Norwood.


Should of carlscum been thrown out of the comp after years of blatant cheating. Remember when ur askin for ur next handout where the money is coming from....!!!
 

H2F

Premium Platinum
Joined
Oct 14, 2006
Posts
23,664
Likes
15,814
AFL Club
Hawthorn
#7
I have said a number of times that new and soulless clubs should not of been let into the AFL. They have no accountability to past players or long life supporters. If we could do it all over again would you let West Coast and Adelaide back in, or other successful and established clubs like Claremont and Norwood.
Sorry this is utter crap. Without the interstate teams the game would be a joke.

I don't subscribe to any of this stuff and hope that another team pops up in WA, SA, NSW and QLD as soon as possible.

Preferrably this would mean the relocation of four clubs in VIC, however emotion does not allow me to wish it on any of us.

Therefore lets go for a 20 team competition that keeps us VIC clubs alive.
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2002
Posts
10,829
Likes
2,668
Location
MCG, pocket, Punt rd end
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Victory, Hereford
#8
What should have happened when the AFL started was to create a dozen (or so) super teams from all around the country with the existing clubs at state level acting as feeder clubs.
It would have been the fairest way to do it and we wouldn't be having the problem of poor clubs like we do today.
 

Johnny_3

All Australian
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Posts
901
Likes
2
AFL Club
Carlton
#9
Sorry to offend. And this is not a troll what so ever. The AFL does need to move 1-2 teams out of Victoria.

two of:
WB
KAN
HAW
MELB
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

wally funk

Premiership Player
Joined
Mar 14, 2007
Posts
3,796
Likes
2,425
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
#12
I have said a number of times that new and soulless clubs should not have been let into the AFL.
without wanting to start a fight or incur the wrath of a fellow poster, please learn english as it makes posts easier to read. if you re-read your original post, the line "...should not of been..." in your post makes no sense.
 

bigsam

Debutant
Joined
Mar 21, 2007
Posts
58
Likes
0
AFL Club
West Coast
#13
This should pobably have gone on the main board as a general question. FWIW, I stongly believe that franchise clubs are a big mistake, and merely reinforce the growing coporate culture that the AFL now embodies. West Coast and Adelaide - :thumbsdown:
Growing corporate culture??

how uninformed...

afterall, aren't Mr McGuire and Mr Pratt heavily involved in Australia's corporate business world? EMcG being PBL and Pratt being Visy (? - correct me if im wrong)
 

Dagless

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 26, 2007
Posts
34,372
Likes
9,994
Location
Not Scotland
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
NYGiants
#14
I believe for a club to enter an interstate competition (ie the VFL) the franchise may have been the best choice. Remember that if they decided to let in Port Adelaide for example, there would have been a fair few who would not support them due to previous affiliations in the SANFL/WAFL. I think that the franchises were the best bet for the state as a whole in that MOST affiliations werent recognised. They needed to see whether an interstate club would last in the Victorian Football League, and they proved it so they brought in other clubs when it proved to be successful. I truly don't believe Port Adelaide in the VFL would have succeeded as the initial SA VFL/AFL club for that reason, albeit they were the most successful SANFL club. There was too much pre-ordained hatred, mainly from jealousy.
 

Aussie Joe

Premiership Player
Joined
May 5, 2006
Posts
3,465
Likes
607
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
SF Giants, Everton
Thread starter #17
without wanting to start a fight or incur the wrath of a fellow poster, please learn english as it makes posts easier to read. if you re-read your original post, the line "...should not of been..." in your post makes no sense.
I apologise you Gunners filth :D
 
Top Bottom