Prediction Will the AFL’s richest clubs form a coalition

Remove this Banner Ad

Cm Perfect

Debutant
Jul 11, 2004
138
94
Dorset, UK
AFL Club
West Coast
Relegate a couple of the vic teams to the vfl and give them the right to win into the pool of the vic based afl teams.

Worst vic based team can be relegated or something

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
This. There is no incentive for the crap Vic teams to get any better as they just get priority picks handed out, along with ridiculous free agent compo (e.g. Melbourne getting Pick #3 for James Frawley) plus financial bail outs from the AFL. A yearly two up/two down relegation/promotion system between AFL and VFL would create incentive to actually improve as there is a threat of being replaced by the successful clubs in the tier below.

AFL should use some of their cash to invest in the VFL and make it more attractive as a TV product for those clubs' fans (replacing lost income from the current 9 games a week AFL media deal) and close the quality gap between the worst AFL teams and best VFL teams.

At present, the perennially crap Vic clubs essentially operate as propped-up second tier clubs already, with no hope of challenging for a flag any time soon, existing as minnows in an over-saturated market and dragging down the standard of the supposedly elite league. Does anyone seriously think any of North, St Kilda or Melbourne will win a flag in the next 20 years?
 

WCE_phil

Norm Smith Medallist
Nov 14, 2009
9,160
7,781
perth
AFL Club
West Coast
We would all love to see a national reserves but doing the maths, for interstate teams it would be another 1 mill in flights alone on top of player payments, staffing etc and still require plundering the WAFL for top up players.
AFL pays for flights.

Only works if we lose 4 afl clubs.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

JohnW

Club Legend
Oct 6, 2005
1,472
1,358
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
This. There is no incentive for the crap Vic teams to get any better as they just get priority picks handed out, along with ridiculous free agent compo (e.g. Melbourne getting Pick #3 for James Frawley) plus financial bail outs from the AFL. A yearly two up/two down relegation/promotion system between AFL and VFL would create incentive to actually improve as there is a threat of being replaced by the successful clubs in the tier below.

AFL should use some of their cash to invest in the VFL and make it more attractive as a TV product for those clubs' fans (replacing lost income from the current 9 games a week AFL media deal) and close the quality gap between the worst AFL teams and best VFL teams.

At present, the perennially crap Vic clubs essentially operate as propped-up second tier clubs already, with no hope of challenging for a flag any time soon, existing as minnows in an over-saturated market and dragging down the standard of the supposedly elite league. Does anyone seriously think any of North, St Kilda or Melbourne will win a flag in the next 20 years?
I actually wonder is some of those minnow clubs would be better of financially just running in the VFL?
 

dinnaz

Debutant
Dec 26, 2011
149
92
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
AFL pays for flights.

Only works if we lose 4 afl clubs.
League involvment would equilise the difference in costs between West Coast & Collingwood for example. Get QANTAS to be a national sponsor of the AFL offering subsidised tickets or such. Would work well for all parties involved.
 

dinnaz

Debutant
Dec 26, 2011
149
92
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
I actually wonder is some of those minnow clubs would be better of financially just running in the VFL?
A relegation system would never work, especially pooling talent in the VFL as nationally players would naturally gravitate to any VFL teams to get a chance at the big time. Plus imagine Juddy playing VFL because the rest of Carlton are so sh*t!
Every current AFL team have massive off field dollars compared to any state league setups.
 

Astro7

Official Oranges Man
Aug 6, 2017
2,570
3,087
AFL Club
West Coast
This. There is no incentive for the crap Vic teams to get any better as they just get priority picks handed out, along with ridiculous free agent compo (e.g. Melbourne getting Pick #3 for James Frawley) plus financial bail outs from the AFL. A yearly two up/two down relegation/promotion system between AFL and VFL would create incentive to actually improve as there is a threat of being replaced by the successful clubs in the tier below.

AFL should use some of their cash to invest in the VFL and make it more attractive as a TV product for those clubs' fans (replacing lost income from the current 9 games a week AFL media deal) and close the quality gap between the worst AFL teams and best VFL teams.

At present, the perennially crap Vic clubs essentially operate as propped-up second tier clubs already, with no hope of challenging for a flag any time soon, existing as minnows in an over-saturated market and dragging down the standard of the supposedly elite league. Does anyone seriously think any of North, St Kilda or Melbourne will win a flag in the next 20 years?
I agree with anything that reduces Vic bias amongst the league and media, reduces a Melbourne monopoly on the GF and MCG, and reduces Vic clubs on the ladder!?
I know there's all sorts of complex reasons not to, including peoples reticence to adapt, let go and move on - but to be a truly national comp and level playing field there should be two teams in each state (incl. Vic). Develop two teams in Northern Territory (Darwin and Alice Springs?) and two teams to Tassie...or 1 in Tassie and 1 in Canberra? 14 teams and rework the H+A season accordingly. I'd rather watch a team from Alice Springs than a cellar-dwelling Vic team.

Give the Vics/VFL a 2nd tier comp that earn their way into AFL at the expense of an AFL Vic team already there? Or relocate those 4 teams from Vic and scrub the remaining low-ladder Vic teams from the national comp. No I haven't thought it through, but anything bar the ridiculous overload of Vic teams in a supposed national comp, who we all have to pay for and prop up. The AFL should only use money from it's Victorian interests to support the lower Vic clubs, not money siphoned from interstate clubs-if that does happen? Why should interstate clubs pay indirectly for supporting lowly Vic clubs.
 

dinnaz

Debutant
Dec 26, 2011
149
92
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Victoria can support more teams surely Astro7

Going by population:
5,230,000Sydney
5,000,000Melb
2,460,000Brisbane
2,050,000Perth
2,050,000Perth
1,340,000Adelaide
1,340,000Adelaide
679,000Gold Coast
486,000Newcastle
457,000Canberra
333,000Sunshine Coast
302,000Wollongong
268,000Geelong
206,000Hobart
180,000Townsville
152,000Cairns
132,000Darwin
137,000Toowoomba
106,000Launceston

Melbourne has 9 teams which is too many. Perth could probably hold 1 more, Sydney could theoretically hold many more as well as Newcastle, Canberra etc its getting the support for every home game that counts. Imagine being an AFL team in Hobart. The player retention rate would by dismall like the weather :p Geelong are the gold standard for non capital cities. Something like 12% of their population are required to fill a 36000 stadium each week.
 

Astro7

Official Oranges Man
Aug 6, 2017
2,570
3,087
AFL Club
West Coast
Victoria can support more teams surely Astro7

Going by population:
5,230,000Sydney
5,000,000Melb
2,460,000Brisbane
2,050,000Perth
2,050,000Perth
1,340,000Adelaide
1,340,000Adelaide
679,000Gold Coast
486,000Newcastle
457,000Canberra
333,000Sunshine Coast
302,000Wollongong
268,000Geelong
206,000Hobart
180,000Townsville
152,000Cairns
132,000Darwin
137,000Toowoomba
106,000Launceston

Melbourne has 9 teams which is too many. Perth could probably hold 1 more, Sydney could theoretically hold many more as well as Newcastle, Canberra etc its getting the support for every home game that counts. Imagine being an AFL team in Hobart. The player retention rate would by dismall like the weather :p Geelong are the gold standard for non capital cities. Something like 12% of their population are required to fill a 36000 stadium each week.
Yep, Tassie wouldn't be a dream posting for many young men, neither would Alice or Darwin I'm guessing? :D Regardless, Melbourne has too many teams!
The AFL is a business, so it'll always be business first = expansion, bums on seats, membership etc. Yes, it's not a perfect world but the AFL and the Vic 'stacking' takes that phrase or concept to another level?
 

Choogler

Senior List
Nov 27, 2018
171
186
AFL Club
West Coast
The AFL's lack of business acumen was never more evident than when they chose to create new clubs in GC & GWS. It was a moment in time where, having made the decision to expand, that they could also have forced two of the Melbourne based leeches that continually suck money out of the game to relocate. The new clubs would then have had a supporter base, a player base and a sense of history from day one. They could have been afforded the same financial support given to GC and GWS. Not relocating the clubs has cost the AFL an additional $250 - $300 million in distributions. Some might say that it would have been offset by reduced broadcasting revenue but seriously, it would be one less game per week and not as significant as some might think.
The benefits to the competition through stronger more viable clubs, more clubs playing each other twice, reduced dilution of player pool, more travelling by Vic teams, reduced prop up payments to non-viable clubs and the move of the balance of power away from Victoria would outweigh any loss of revenue from broadcasting.
I want a competition where all clubs are vibrant, competitive and profitable not one where the strong get stronger and the weak have no hope. The existing AFL model will never deliver that.
 

FreeTK

Premiership Player
Oct 2, 2019
4,209
7,911
AFL Club
West Coast
Is this the end for the VaFL as we know it? In times of crisis, the rich get richer.

Herald Sun with Michael Warner leading with an article

It's on a pay wall but here is a taster and the flavour:-

Five of footy’s richest clubs have held talks amid fears they could be forced to shoulder the burden of the industry’s mega cost cuts.
Collingwood, West Coast, Richmond, Hawthorn and Essendon have formed a loose coalition ahead of a proposed post-COVID reshaping of the AFL’s equalisation system.

The gang of five want the AFL to guarantee annual distributions for all clubs equivalent to the full salary cap next year and beyond - and not just to the competition’s cash-strapped teams, as has been the position over the last decade.

Gillon McLachlan informed club chiefs that there were competing arguments around cash distributions during the tense meeting. Picture: Michael Willson/AFL Photos

The league believes its capacity to pay dividends equal to total player payments will depend on the outcome of pay negotiations with the AFL Players’ Association set to reach a climax next week.

The AFL wants player wages to fall from $14.5 million per club next season to no more than $12 million.


Are we likely to see this addressed for a change in the AFL?
Will we finally see the strugglers in Victoria forced to merge or go for good.
Can St Kilda, Doggies, Norf and Melbourne justify their franchise status?
Will we see GWS and Suns continue with massive bleeding?

The Vic centric nature of the competition is holding us back.



My favourite is to have 12 teams - 6 in VicTas, 2 in each of WA and SA, and 1 each in Qld and NSW with it being a fair competition where we play each other twice in H&A?

Vic
Collingwood
Carlton and Norf merger (might as well follow up on John Elliot's idea in the 90's)
Essendon and Doggies merger
Hawthorn and Saints merger (might as well since Hawks taking over Dingley)
Richmond and Melbourne
Geelong
I need to preface my response in pointing out that the general thrust of your post is so outside the realm of probability.

The AFL is not making drastic culls of teams from the competition. The only vulnerable clubs are St Kilda and North. While there is talk of North relocation, that takes one problem (north being a basket case) and creates two problems (Tassie want their own team, not a Vicco reject) without solving any of the issues.

I am sorry. The AFL will stay in it's current structure for the foreseeable future, and this fantasy that West Coast will join forces with big Victorian clubs to make it happen is ludicrous, fanciful and not borne out of any kind of grounding in reality.

The AFL clubs essentially control the commission. But the issue is we have such a variety of different clubs that have different needs and realities. While West Coast works well with the other big clubs on issues such as distributions, that is not the case when it comes to say, fixturing, or the location of the grand final.

Clubs work together to get good outcomes on certain issues where their interests are aligned, but their collaboration only exists on issues on which they agree. For instance, Port and West Coast might hold similar views around fixturing, or MCG Grand Final, but their views on equalisation, unequal distribution would be diametrically opposed.

Simply put you have all the clubs split on a number of issues, and the fact there is no majority of clubs that agree one way or the other on the big issues means the status quo (and the Commission) remains in place.

Are we likely to see this addressed for a change in the AFL?
Yes, but not in the way you would like. West Coast/Collingwood/Richmond/Hawthorn/Essendon or some combination of those teams have worked together for almost a decade to get concessions from AFL. The same thing happened at the beginning of the COVID shutdown when those 5 teams worked together to win "exemptions" for unassisted clubs whereby they do not need to open their books and give financial oversight to the AFL.

I think they will probably be successful in guaranteeing that the AFL provides base distrubtion funding equal to TPP. But that is about as much as they will get.

Will we finally see the strugglers in Victoria forced to merge or go for good?
No. Nizzy even said himself in his article with The West that the AFL has zero appetite to get rid of one of the 18 current clubs. Obviously the most vulnerable club is North, but North don't want to go to Tassie and Tassie do not want North.


Can St Kilda, Doggies, Norf and Melbourne justify their franchise status?
Justify it to who? All they need to do is remain solvent, and they will retain their license and their "franchise status" as an AFL club. The AFL will provide enough funding through equalised distribution that all clubs are able to remain solvent.

Will we see GWS and Suns continue with massive bleeding?
Yes. The two newest clubs are now two of the most important. When you have an economic contraction, you need to maintain the capacity for growth in your business/industry. The area of biggest growth potential is without doubt SEQ and NSW, and AFLW. Those teams are here to stay.

What is far more telling is Sydney's President pushing for a competition wide external review that has been supported by many of the clubs.

My favourite is to have 12 teams - 6 in VicTas, 2 in each of WA and SA, and 1 each in Qld and NSW with it being a fair competition where we play each other twice in H&A?

This is not going to happen.

Also - If you believe in a true National competition, you can't then go and throw GWS/GCS under the bus.


 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad