Would footy be better without national expansion?

Kwality

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 14, 2011
Posts
15,681
Likes
4,902
Location
Tootgarook
AFL Club
West Coast
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
Subi is a well run club on & off field, it would never survive in a promo/relegation environment, its funded by the WAFC. A big part of Subis success is understanding who & what they are, & its not stumping the weak end of the AFL comp.

Sooooby !!!
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

SellarStardom

All Australian
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Posts
813
Likes
501
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Adelaide
Subi is a well run club on & off field, it would never survive in a promo/relegation environment, its funded by the WAFC. A big part of Subis success is understanding who & what they are, & its not stumping the weak end of the AFL comp.

Sooooby !!!
Subi wouldn't want to grow into a bigger club on the national stage, I would be surprised if this was the case.

Norwood for an example would want to if it was economical.

With all of this discussion, the only way promotion works is if the league governing body was to provide a promotion fee. $5-10M for any club State League club that is promoted for football department spending.
 

Kwality

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 14, 2011
Posts
15,681
Likes
4,902
Location
Tootgarook
AFL Club
West Coast
Subi wouldn't want to grow into a bigger club on the national stage, I would be surprised if this was the case.

Norwood for an example would want to if it was economical.

With all of this discussion, the only way promotion works is if the league governing body was to provide a promotion fee. $5-10M for any club State League club that is promoted for football department spending.
Are players forced to play at the lower level .....
 

madmug

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Posts
14,094
Likes
7,625
Location
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
Subi wouldn't want to grow into a bigger club on the national stage, I would be surprised if this was the case.

Norwood for an example would want to if it was economical.

With all of this discussion, the only way promotion works is if the league governing body was to provide a promotion fee. $5-10M for any club State League club that is promoted for football department spending.
The thing is, why would the AFL even consider such a structure? They are their to support Melbourne suburban clubs. The rules are all about limiting the bigger clubs, limiting WA & SA to 2 clubs so they have no power, but mainly to keep the poorer original VFL suburban clubs afloat. That, no matter how crap they are off or on field. Why would they give anyone else a slice of the pie? They sidelined the WAFL & SANFL for a reason.
 

SellarStardom

All Australian
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Posts
813
Likes
501
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Adelaide
The thing is, why would the AFL even consider such a structure? They are their to support Melbourne suburban clubs. The rules are all about limiting the bigger clubs, limiting WA & SA to 2 clubs so they have no power, but mainly to keep the poorer original VFL suburban clubs afloat. That, no matter how crap they are off or on field. Why would they give anyone else a slice of the pie? They sidelined the WAFL & SANFL for a reason.
Very true, national comp or expanded VFL....
 

The_Wookie

Queenslander
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Posts
31,719
Likes
29,021
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Carlton
Moderator #281
The thing is, why would the AFL even consider such a structure?
The league will never go for Pro/Rel. The clubs wont go for it. The AFLPA wont go for it. There is no benefit to being relegated whatsoever and plenty of negatives.

They are their to support Melbourne suburban clubs.
And Sydney/GWS/Brisbane/Gold Coast/Port Adelaide/Adelaide.

The rules are all about limiting the bigger clubs, limiting WA & SA to 2 clubs so they have no power, but mainly to keep the poorer original VFL suburban clubs afloat. That, no matter how crap they are off or on field. Why would they give anyone else a slice of the pie? They sidelined the WAFL & SANFL for a reason.
The league spent the better part of the 90s trying to actively encourage mergers - and put millions on the table to try and move things along. One of which happened, one of which got very close and a couple that didnt get out of negotiations. The league actively trying to persuade North to relocate as late as 2007.

The rules are theoretically about equalisation - its why theres a draft and a salary cap, and trying to make sure theres a level playing field in game expenditure between clubs. And as has Ive said many times but you conveniently ignore - the AFL also propped/props up Sydney/GWS/Gold Coast/Brisbane and has in the past had to cover Port and even Adelaide before the move to Adelaide Oval.

WA and SA arent limited to 2 clubs by any rules - the league simply doesnt require more. Any more than it requires a Tasmanian team. Or one from Wonthaggi. Or Tennant Creek. T

The WAFL and SANFL were sidelined because the VFL didnt need them for its plans. SA and WA Clubs were trying to join the VFL from 1980 onwards. And im fairly sure history has proven the VFL right in that regard. Why share power if you dont have to?
 

madmug

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Posts
14,094
Likes
7,625
Location
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
The league will never go for Pro/Rel. The clubs wont go for it. The AFLPA wont go for it. There is no benefit to being relegated whatsoever and plenty of negatives.



And Sydney/GWS/Brisbane/Gold Coast/Port Adelaide/Adelaide.



The league spent the better part of the 90s trying to actively encourage mergers - and put millions on the table to try and move things along. One of which happened, one of which got very close and a couple that didnt get out of negotiations. The league actively trying to persuade North to relocate as late as 2007.

The rules are theoretically about equalisation - its why theres a draft and a salary cap, and trying to make sure theres a level playing field in game expenditure between clubs. And as has Ive said many times but you conveniently ignore - the AFL also propped/props up Sydney/GWS/Gold Coast/Brisbane and has in the past had to cover Port and even Adelaide before the move to Adelaide Oval.

WA and SA arent limited to 2 clubs by any rules - the league simply doesnt require more. Any more than it requires a Tasmanian team. Or one from Wonthaggi. Or Tennant Creek. T

The WAFL and SANFL were sidelined because the VFL didnt need them for its plans. SA and WA Clubs were trying to join the VFL from 1980 onwards. And im fairly sure history has proven the VFL right in that regard. Why share power if you dont have to?
The league had some idea in the 1990's of how a national league should be structured. Just because they didn't push it through shows exactly where the political power lies. The fact they sidelined WA & SA shows where the political power lies, the fact WA has only 2 clubs explains exactly how to centralise the power, controlling the boards in 'expansion' clubs shows how to keep power.

You've explained nothing. 'WA & SA aren't limited to 2 clubs by any rules'. Or Tas or Wonthaggi. Well I'll BF! You really have enlightened us , again, & clearly explained how the AFL operates, NOT.

I said they don't need to share power, so you regurgitate that to me????

Its about the politics of power, a pseudo corporate operation which is all about being a 'boys' club. Keeping the suburban structure afloat, 'looking after each other' & milking corporate wages for the themselves & their mates out of it.

'Power corrupts, absolute power------'
 

Kwality

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 14, 2011
Posts
15,681
Likes
4,902
Location
Tootgarook
AFL Club
West Coast
The league had some idea in the 1990's of how a national league should be structured. Just because they didn't push it through shows exactly where the political power lies. The fact they sidelined WA & SA shows where the political power lies, the fact WA has only 2 clubs explains exactly how to centralise the power, controlling the boards in 'expansion' clubs shows how to keep power.

You've explained nothing. 'WA & SA aren't limited to 2 clubs by any rules'. Or Tas or Wonthaggi. Well I'll BF! You really have enlightened us , again, & clearly explained how the AFL operates, NOT.

I said they don't need to share power, so you regurgitate that to me????

Its about the politics of power, a pseudo corporate operation which is all about being a 'boys' club. Keeping the suburban structure afloat, 'looking after each other' & milking corporate wages for the themselves & their mates out of it.

'Power corrupts, absolute power------'
The AFL Commission needs to be held accountable BUT the clubs appear unwilling to challenge the executive - that the CEO sits on the Commission is a problem in itself, not conducive to introspection with the executive under scrutiny.
As for the media, its so far under the thumb of the AFL executive, it wont rock the boat.
 
Last edited:

The_Wookie

Queenslander
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Posts
31,719
Likes
29,021
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Carlton
Moderator #284
The league had some idea in the 1990's of how a national league should be structured. Just because they didn't push it through shows exactly where the political power lies. The fact they sidelined WA & SA shows where the political power lies,
The fact that they sidelined WA and SA shows that they didnt need them - not so much about politics as it was just simply not requiring them. SA were trying to dictate terms for entering right up until Ports attempt to defect in 1990.

the fact WA has only 2 clubs explains exactly how to centralise the power, controlling the boards in 'expansion' clubs shows how to keep power.
Until those expansion clubs are off AFL funding then thats not an unrealistic expectation. The fact that WA only has 2 clubs speaks to the fact that the league doesnt require or want more and has nothing to do with centralising power.

You've explained nothing. 'WA & SA aren't limited to 2 clubs by any rules'. Or Tas or Wonthaggi. Well I'll BF! You really have enlightened us , again, & clearly explained how the AFL operates, NOT.'
And Ill keep doing so until you get it through your head that there is no divine right for any state to have a goddamn AFL team/s, that the league has an obligation to its incumbent sides, that teams are assigned where the AFL deems it, according to rules they formulate, and structures they desire. And not solely based on some quaint notion of "tradition'.
 

madmug

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Posts
14,094
Likes
7,625
Location
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
The fact that they sidelined WA and SA shows that they didnt need them - not so much about politics as it was just simply not requiring them. SA were trying to dictate terms for entering right up until Ports attempt to defect in 1990.



Until those expansion clubs are off AFL funding then thats not an unrealistic expectation. The fact that WA only has 2 clubs speaks to the fact that the league doesnt require or want more and has nothing to do with centralising power.



And Ill keep doing so until you get it through your head that there is no divine right for any state to have a goddamn AFL team/s, that the league has an obligation to its incumbent sides, that teams are assigned where the AFL deems it, according to rules they formulate, and structures they desire. And not solely based on some quaint notion of "tradition'.
Writing the odd diatribe of 'it is because it is', doesn't address the reasons as to why things happen, or don't.

'The fact WA only has 2 clubs speaks to the fact that the league doesn't require or want more---' !!! Did you ring Gil to ok that startling admission?? Same thing, saying it is because it is answers nothing. It just reinforces the idea that the AFL is a VFL lifejacket. Sucking the game for what its worth.

I know you don't like any thought the questions the current order of the football universe, but at least understand that questioning things in a pluralistic society is in fact, healthy.

Let us know if you come up with some analysis, not just obsequious sounding blurbs 'direct' from head office.

"The AFL deems"!! FMD!!
 

The_Wookie

Queenslander
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Posts
31,719
Likes
29,021
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Carlton
Moderator #286
lay aside the fact I deleted this post well before you posted your bullshit response to it.

Writing the odd diatribe of 'it is because it is', doesn't address the reasons as to why things happen, or don't.
Not accepting the reasons in my opinion doesnt mean I havent addressed them either.

Writing that its a conspiracy doesnt make it one either. And why you think something happened isnt necessarily true either.

'The fact WA only has 2 clubs speaks to the fact that the league doesn't require or want more---' !!! Did you ring Gil to ok that startling admission??
No you're right, its a conspiracy against WA. Silly me.

Same thing, saying it is because it is answers nothing. It just reinforces the idea that the AFL is a VFL lifejacket. Sucking the game for what its worth.
Thats not supported by every expansion program the AFL has done since 1990.

I know you don't like any thought the questions the current order of the football universe, but at least understand that questioning things in a pluralistic society is in fact, healthy.
I dont care what you write, as long as you dont resort to personal insults during the course of the discussion

Let us know if you come up with some analysis, not just obsequious sounding blurbs 'direct' from head office.
You let me know when you come up with something other than "vics bad".

"The AFL deems"!! FMD!!
I mean god forbid I have a vocabulary.

That is an absolute fact whether you like it or not.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

madmug

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Posts
14,094
Likes
7,625
Location
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
lay aside the fact I deleted this post well before you posted your bullshit response to it.



Not accepting the reasons in my opinion doesnt mean I havent addressed them either.

Writing that its a conspiracy doesnt make it one either. And why you think something happened isnt necessarily true either.



No you're right, its a conspiracy against WA. Silly me.



Thats not supported by every expansion program the AFL has done since 1990.



I dont care what you write, as long as you dont resort to personal insults during the course of the discussion



You let me know when you come up with something other than "vics bad".



I mean god forbid I have a vocabulary.

That is an absolute fact whether you like it or not.

You deleted what?

You don't write reasons, thats the point. Analysis isn't quoting official history.

What personal insults have you imagined in what I put? Please explain?

Let me know when you apply some thought other than 'it is what the AFL deems'. The AFL attitude, not you vocab was my point. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. I thought it was obvious.

Remember about power & absolute power. All our institutions should be questioned, otherwise they'll all act like our banks. With arrogance, self interest & dubious, if not corrupt, practices.
 

rfctiger74

Premium Platinum
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
42,445
Likes
78,957
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
76'ers
You deleted what?

You don't write reasons, thats the point. Analysis isn't quoting official history.

What personal insults have you imagined in what I put? Please explain?

Let me know when you apply some thought other than 'it is what the AFL deems'. The AFL attitude, not you vocab was my point. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. I thought it was obvious.

Remember about power & absolute power. All our institutions should be questioned, otherwise they'll all act like our banks. With arrogance, self interest & dubious, if not corrupt, practices.
I think you will find dude that the number one roadblock to wa3 is not the AFL being "vicco" but the WCE wanting to maintain its stranglehold on the state. It's against their own interest financially to agree to another local competitor.

They have wait lists for memberships, corp hospitality and sponsorships. Bring in wa3, and that risks getting diluted
 

The King!

Supervisor
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Posts
88,926
Likes
69,483
Location
Backwater
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Cavs, Redsox, Patriots
Well if a foundation club didn’t pay two license fees to join the comp it was already in via private ownership

Or give Sunday footy to televise against the vfa on Sunday’s the vfl might be dead
 

The_Wookie

Queenslander
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Posts
31,719
Likes
29,021
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Carlton
Moderator #290
You deleted what?
It was deleted. I put it back after you responded to it.

You don't write reasons, thats the point. Analysis isn't quoting official history.
I dont have your reasons.

What personal insults have you imagined in what I put? Please explain?
Did i say you had?

Let me know when you apply some thought other than 'it is what the AFL deems'. The AFL attitude, not you vocab was my point. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. I thought it was obvious.
And i responded to both. I thought that was obvious.

Remember about power & absolute power. All our institutions should be questioned, otherwise they'll all act like our banks. With arrogance, self interest & dubious, if not corrupt, practices.
Question everything, sure. But i generally apply hanlons razor to these things as well. Especially when it applies to the expansion of the VFL to the AFL and the very amateur way the game was run across the country in the mid to late 80s.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"
 

The King!

Supervisor
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Posts
88,926
Likes
69,483
Location
Backwater
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Cavs, Redsox, Patriots
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.

Gws work in schools and developing NSW fans certainly will build them nicely I think, they have learnt a bit from the swans mistakes of their first 20 or so years in Sydney

I think both clubs will be strong support wise going into the future
 

SellarStardom

All Australian
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Posts
813
Likes
501
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Adelaide
So let's get back to the fundamentals. Is there enough top-tier talent to warrant an 18 team competition. Increasingly the answer is no, not voiced by me but voiced by many long-standing football people.

Player payments are escalating and attendance and profits of the clubs aren't skyrocketing. Meanwhile, outside of female participation are we seeing an increase?

The evidence is showing that if you don't get drafted as an 18-year-old your chances are minimal and the second tier comps are basically amateurs. So pathways for kids are very limited.

An elite comp and a bigger middle division comp would provide more pathways and a greater appetite for kids.
 

The_Wookie

Queenslander
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Posts
31,719
Likes
29,021
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Carlton
Moderator #293
So let's get back to the fundamentals. Is there enough top-tier talent to warrant an 18 team competition. Increasingly the answer is no, not voiced by me but voiced by many long-standing football people.
I still believe the problem is the focus is on potential and not developed talent, which goes to...

The evidence is showing that if you don't get drafted as an 18-year-old your chances are minimal and the second tier comps are basically amateurs. So pathways for kids are very limited.
Take players at an older age when they've had a chance to grow, and develop, rather than at 18. Personally Id wait to 20-21.
 

madmug

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Posts
14,094
Likes
7,625
Location
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
It was deleted. I put it back after you responded to it.



I dont have your reasons.



Did i say you had?



And i responded to both. I thought that was obvious.



Question everything, sure. But i generally apply hanlons razor to these things as well. Especially when it applies to the expansion of the VFL to the AFL and the very amateur way the game was run across the country in the mid to late 80s.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"
Yes & always remember 'In the race of life, always back self interest, at least you know its trying'. In this case the AFL are working hard for themselves & their mates, not for AR football. That much is clear.
 

SellarStardom

All Australian
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Posts
813
Likes
501
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Adelaide
I still believe the problem is the focus is on potential and not developed talent, which goes to...



Take players at an older age when they've had a chance to grow, and develop, rather than at 18. Personally Id wait to 20-21.
I agree Wookie but still believe a healthy middle professional division would lead to greater player pathways.

12 clubs at the elite level is about the right number. Another 10-12 in the middle division, all professional and at a good salary. Our elite bracket players will be on $500k+/season whilst the second division would be in the $200-$500 bracket. We have that spread now in the playing lists across the league. You would need reduced playing lists to make this work with trading and player loans between the divisions much like the EPL.
 

The King!

Supervisor
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Posts
88,926
Likes
69,483
Location
Backwater
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Cavs, Redsox, Patriots
I agree Wookie but still believe a healthy middle professional division would lead to greater player pathways.

12 clubs at the elite level is about the right number. Another 10-12 in the middle division, all professional and at a good salary. Our elite bracket players will be on $500k+/season whilst the second division would be in the $200-$500 bracket. We have that spread now in the playing lists across the league. You would need reduced playing lists to make this work with trading and player loans between the divisions much like the EPL.
Imo
Even if that model is correct it won’t happen, because we have always been adjusting a long established league

Can’t seem them suddenly cutting or relegating teams
 
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Posts
1,046
Likes
654
AFL Club
Melbourne
With the declining crowd numbers for the Q clash it suggests to me that expansion is not going to plan and to think of the 10's of millions spent so far on the Suns, and please no comments about 10 year,15 year or 20 year plans on the GC. It ain't working
Iv'e said it all along and will continue to say it that the AFL made a huge mistake not putting a club in Tassie
 

The_Wookie

Queenslander
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Posts
31,719
Likes
29,021
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Carlton
Moderator #298
With the declining crowd numbers for the Q clash it suggests to me that expansion is not going to plan and to think of the 10's of millions spent so far on the Suns, and please no comments about 10 year,15 year or 20 year plans on the GC. It ain't working
Iv'e said it all along and will continue to say it that the AFL made a huge mistake not putting a club in Tassie
Form means a fair bit, and the Queensland clubs havent really been amongst it since 2004
 

madmug

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Posts
14,094
Likes
7,625
Location
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
Form means a fair bit, and the Queensland clubs havent really been amongst it since 2004
It just shows the underlying support of 'expansion' clubs is still lacking. Example Carlton who are in a real hole, & have been for well over a decade yet they still average 33k to a game. It shows football heartland supporters are far more durable & not just about in the good times. The AFL simply bit off more than it could rightly chew.

The media rights are not written in gold forever more. It would only take a decent economic shock & then the financial pressure might be on.

So I just hope they don't choke.
 

Roylion

Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Posts
12,948
Likes
8,434
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Moderator #300
So let's get back to the fundamentals. Is there enough top-tier talent to warrant an 18 team competition. Increasingly the answer is no, not voiced by me but voiced by many long-standing football people.
Why wouldn't there be as much 'top-tier talent' for 18 teams now as there was for 16 teams, in say 1996?

Australia's population in 1996 was about 18.3 million. In 2018 Australia's population was 24.7 million.

You'd think with an extra 6 million people between 1996 and 2018, of which roughly half are male, there would be at least another 80 players of a talent commensurate with that of existing AFL talent in 1996 to fill two extra teams by 2018.

By extension, if Australia adds, (as is projected) another 14 million people by 2050 why wouldn't there be an equal amount of top tier talent for at least another two teams, which would involve adding another 80 players (from a pool of roughly an extra 7 million males)?
 
Top Bottom