Would footy be better without national expansion?

General Giant

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Posts
28,592
Likes
19,738
AFL Club
GWS
To me the answer is to shift or get rid of two Melbourne clubs like St Kilda and North Melbourne but the Melbourne centric AFL/VFL will never do that while they have the TV money propping up Victorian clubs.

The other option is to bring a Tassie team and one other (Nth QLD,Canberra?) and have two conferences of 10 teams playing each other twice with a final of 8 or 10 clubs made up of the top 4 or 5 teams from each group.
I can see in the end that the AFL would go for that.
Can have more derbys, 2 more "division" trophys to play for.

Can see why they would want it.

Not saying i do.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Power Raid

TheBrownDog
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Posts
60,776
Likes
49,628
Location
West Perth
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
I’ve done a back flip on national expansion.

I once thought it was good for footy as it could centralise administration, generate more revenue and better distributed.

The absence of two rival crowds for so many games each week, the loss of footy being part of the community and the stress on players are just some of the reasons the AFL is failing footy.

I love footy and the AFL but I think it needs to address these issues and it’s formula.
 

JoondalupJ

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Posts
11,590
Likes
3,921
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Perth Wildcats basketball
I care about the bottom line and what happens 20-30 years down the track. Sydney Swans are a good example of a big difference between what happens when a team is good and when it struggles.

Swans from 1982-5 was getting between 7-15,000 people a game at the SCG. They face a struggler like the saints or Fitzroy, they got 7-8,000. They get a team like the Magpies, Blues or Essendon they get anything between 12-15,000. This was a period where it was a 12 team comp, 6 games were all played at the same time. If Swans had a home game at the SCG, they have a Sunday arvo game while everyone played Saturday.

Then Came that 1986-7 seasons when they made finals, not surprisingly they were getting crowds of 15-20,000.

Then they dropped off after that. Then you had that 1992-4 period where the swans got 3 wins in 1992, 1 in 1993 and 4 wins in 1994. 8 wins in 3 years. Crowds drop to 6-9,000 a game.

Then at the end of 1994, Swans recruited Tony Lockett and Paul Roos and the team improved so did the crowds. Then the swans made the grand final in 1996 and their crowds rose back up to 20-25,000 again. 10 years later, they played in 2 grand finals in which they won the 2005 flag.

Now you see that the swans have changed a bit from 1982-2006. A lot can happen in 25 years.

I am not so sure about the Queensland clubs. but if you look at GWS, They can do similar things in what the swans are doing now.
They have a much harder road GWS , to travel , than the Swans. When their down time comes they may just die.
Where they are situated doesn't help and the AFL will never ever throw money at a new club like they have with Sydney for decades. And as they did to the tune of millions to GWS and GC17.

The proof in that is the fact that bloody Gil says NO NO NO NO to a Tasmanian side all the time, why because Tassie can't support a team , bulldust!!!!!!!!!!

NO ITS BECAUSE GIL AND THE AFL HAVE BEEN RUNNING OUT OF MONEY TO CHUCK AT BAD ENTERPRISES!

So its tough luck Tasmania.

If the AFL had have financially set up Tassie instead of out of bounds west Sydney , they would have a big fat future, they are a footy state, but when the down time comes for GWS they will have to sink or swim, one way or another, GC will simply fold up, unless a load of private money saves them.

The expansion was simply done the wrong way, and too many teams full stop, we are diluted.
 

General Giant

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Posts
28,592
Likes
19,738
AFL Club
GWS
They have a much harder road GWS , to travel , than the Swans. When their down time comes they may just die.
Where they are situated doesn't help and the AFL will never ever throw money at a new club like they have with Sydney for decades. And as they did to the tune of millions to GWS and GC17.

The proof in that is the fact that bloody Gil says NO NO NO NO to a Tasmanian side all the time, why because Tassie can't support a team , bulldust!!!!!!!!!!

NO ITS BECAUSE GIL AND THE AFL HAVE BEEN RUNNING OUT OF MONEY TO CHUCK AT BAD ENTERPRISES!

So its tough luck Tasmania.

If the AFL had have financially set up Tassie instead of out of bounds west Sydney , they would have a big fat future, they are a footy state, but when the down time comes for GWS they will have to sink or swim, one way or another, GC will simply fold up, unless a load of private money saves them.

The expansion was simply done the wrong way, and too many teams full stop, we are diluted.
Yeah nah.
Full stop.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
 

Kwality

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 14, 2011
Posts
15,681
Likes
4,902
Location
Tootgarook
AFL Club
West Coast
The expansion was simply done the wrong way, and too many teams full stop, we are diluted.
See Jason Cripps acknowledged the diluted player pool in the News press last weekend - not toeing the party line Jason, bet he gets a please explain from AFL underlining its deny, deny, deny message.
 

Kwality

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 14, 2011
Posts
15,681
Likes
4,902
Location
Tootgarook
AFL Club
West Coast

Billy ray

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 10, 2013
Posts
7,319
Likes
10,792
Location
The Valley near the Alley
AFL Club
Gold Coast

JoondalupJ

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Posts
11,590
Likes
3,921
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Perth Wildcats basketball
See Jason Cripps acknowledged the diluted player pool in the News press last weekend - not toeing the party line Jason, bet he gets a please explain from AFL underlining its deny, deny, deny message.
As the AFL do , over and over.
But now it appears a closer look is needed, and its not just about the congested look the game has now, but it is about how the rules the tiggy touchwood approach actually makes the game look horrible, and it is because our prancers , the umps, (and believe me they have the hardest bloody job in the world) , but these guys under instruction, I guess, stop the game all the time, all the time.
So rules need looking at, especially incidental touching which draws a free kick and sometimes a player outburst in frustration winds up 50 metres down the ground. That too has to stop !

The fifty metre penalty is not being used for what it was meant for .Way too many now days.

And the amount of scoring from free kicks is hell on a footy field.


Umpires are not the reason we go to watch footy.

The AFL has some newer figures showing less crowds on some occasions

And I have to say that hearing players like Jones from Melbourne talk about switching off TV when a game gets bogged down?
Well I 'm no AFL player, but I am a TV turn off PERSON, if the game is lousy, and quite a few are now days
.
The Melbourne skipper had no argument from Geelong's Dangerfield or from Davis from GWS.
All said they love the game and the tactical things.

But they all said the game, if you are spectating, which all these guys do at times, well it looks bad as what footy is meant to be..
 

JoondalupJ

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Posts
11,590
Likes
3,921
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Perth Wildcats basketball
A throw away line by Chairman Jeff:
Kennett said fixture scheduling and "inability to attract sufficient players of high enough standard to be competitive" meant a Tasmanian team as the AFL's 19th club was not feasible.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-07-11/well-abandon-tassie-if-were-not-wanted-kennett
We should have BUT HAVEN'T got a Tasmanian team but if the money flung at GC17 or GWS was put in tassie, well I'd say it would have gone brilliantly, and also if we needed an 18 team Id say GC17 would have been the sacrifice.
GWS is proving a much better deal, but that doesn't mean I still think it was a step too far. And it also doesn't mean that, as all clubs, GWS will face some periods of cellar dweller times and if that West Sydney area is unsupportive , like Sydney Swans people can do sometimes when things aer not on "top" then the Giants will have trouble.
If Tassie is a total no no from the AFL then maybe they should demolish Gold Coast, and have 17, split the goods out of GC17 to Brisbane and GWS.
That would lift the standard.
But I think we have 18 and that's it! Tassie is a tragedy though.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

SellarStardom

All Australian
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Posts
813
Likes
501
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Adelaide
Would 12th place Adelaide get relegated and the winner of the 2nd division (Fremantle?) get promoted for 2019?
I would prefer a 2 up and 2 down system. So if its 12 teams, then right now Adelaide and I think North would be in danger. And damn it would be exciting. Right now as a Crows supporter most of us couldn't care less about the final 2 rounds, season is done.

I wouldn't have an issue if Crows went down.

Ideal would be a 14 team comp with a final 8 I think. Second division would be 12 team's. So with 18 right now it requires a another 8 clubs and that's where we have problems.

So the resolution is a 12 team division 1 and 12 or 10 division 2. This would then only require the addition of 2 to 4 clubs. Tassie side plus a NT side or just 4 sides promoted from the state leagues
 
Last edited:

telsor

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Posts
29,516
Likes
25,506
Location
Here
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Habs
I would prefer a 2 up and 2 down system. So if its 12 teams, then right now Adelaide and I think North would be in danger. And damn it would be exciting. Right now as a Crows supporter most of us couldn't care less about the final 2 rounds, season is done.

I wouldn't have an issue if Crows went down.

Ideal would be a 14 team comp with a final 8 I think. Second division would be 12 team's. So with 18 right now it requires a another 8 clubs and that's where we have problems.

So the resolution is a 12 team division 1 and 12 or 10 division 2. This would then only require the addition of 2 to 4 clubs. Tassie side plus a NT side or just 4 sides promoted from the state leagues
and just where are you going to find the money to support these additional 4-8 teams?


BTW a 12 team div1 and a 10-12 team div 2 would mean the addition of 4-6 teams, not 2-4.
 

SellarStardom

All Australian
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Posts
813
Likes
501
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Adelaide
The money for the 4 extra clubs.

Well I wouldn't be looking at creating a club other than Tassie, I would suggest promotion from the State league champions, more cost effective.

Let's not forget that the AFL had revenue of $650m last year and a profit of $60m. They could do it
 

sprockets

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Posts
3,057
Likes
3,681
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
The money for the 4 extra clubs.

Well I wouldn't be looking at creating a club other than Tassie, I would suggest promotion from the State league champions, more cost effective.

Let's not forget that the AFL had revenue of $650m last year and a profit of $60m. They could do it
Profit of $60m? Not bad for a 'not for profit' organisation.
 

telsor

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Posts
29,516
Likes
25,506
Location
Here
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Habs
The money for the 4 extra clubs.

Well I wouldn't be looking at creating a club other than Tassie, I would suggest promotion from the State league champions, more cost effective.

Let's not forget that the AFL had revenue of $650m last year and a profit of $60m. They could do it
An AFL club costs upwards of $40M/year to run if it's to have any hope of being competitive, so 4 would be over $160M/yr, every year (and AFL 'profits' are usually noticeably lower than that). Additional revenue would be negligible, indeed it could even be less (2nd Div wont exactly be raking in the coin from any source after all).

So I repeat, where is the money going to come from?
 

Kwality

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 14, 2011
Posts
15,681
Likes
4,902
Location
Tootgarook
AFL Club
West Coast
Will Div 2 pull any money from Fox, make that a $NO. Would the current deal drop by 30%, players wages by 30% ...
Profit is a misleading term...Surplus is more correct...It's really just money saved to be used in another year.
:thumbsu:
The AFL was $19mil in the red in the last year of its last TV deal, spent more than they earned.
 

SellarStardom

All Australian
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Posts
813
Likes
501
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Adelaide
Why would there be a need to get to the ideal club number immediately? You could operate a 10 and 10 structure for Div 1 and Div 2, meaning only 2 extra clubs. I think that would be better served by the promotion of state league champions for SA, WA and Vic initially.

I hear that state league sides would be crushed by the bottom sides in the AFL, but that has never been tested. It would be fascinating to see if Subiaco could give Carlton or Brisbane a run and that is without recruitment.

Imagine the interest in the relegation and promotion matches, also how big would a state league champions playoff become? Subiaco versus Norwood this year with Norwood potentially promoted to the Div W to play against Port in Div 2.

Massive games
 
Top Bottom