Would footy be better without national expansion?

[Rusty Brookes]

Yes, it wouldn't make as much money but would be far better as an enjoyment for the fans. Footy lost its soul the moment clubs left their home grounds to play at the plastic arenas like the MCG & Ethiad. I would much rather go see Carlton play in front of 20k at Princes Park than at the MCG infront of 80k.

Having home grounds has a sense of tribalism, which you feel in English soccer.. Going to White Hart Lane for any Spurs fan is tribal, that is our turf which is why the fans and the players cant wait to get back there after spending the year playing at Wembly whilst the new WHL is under construction.

That's all great but the reality of the situation is the vast majority of EPL sides are in dire financial straits and a lot of it is due to upkeep on out of date stadiums. I miss the days of suburban footy but we tend to put on our rose coloured glasses when remembering it. Terrible facilities (particularly toilets), poor viewing (especially for kids), reduced crowd sizes etc. Ground rationalisation has been one of the smartest things the AFL has done. It's allowed for bigger crowds, often much better conditions for supporters, a shared burden (so no one club has to worry about the upkeep on stadium maintenance), etc. Sure playing in front of 20,000 at Princes Park has its appeal but in this day and age that would spell the end of Carlton.

That sense of tribalism is still very much evident at games if you take the time to look for it (eg standing room M10 at Hawthorn games, Richmond M1, etc).

 

[Bunk Moreland]

How would the VFL dwarf anything or expand anywhere without the money they only received by creating teams in WA and SA, and what does it say about 'evolution, ambition and economics' that the VFL essentially borrowed well beyond its means to take the best players from interstate, and then use the position that gave them nationally to justify destroying the other state leagues because they were the 'premier competition'?

I already said. Financial problems of the day aside, far and away the biggest financial injection in the 30-odd years since expansion into WA and SA has been television.

The VFL covered Melbourne and Sydney, which were and remain by far the biggest television markets. Had the VFL not expanded into WA and SA, it’s television income of the past thirty years would still have dwarfed that of the WAFL and SANFL.

The rest of the economics, and players, and possibly clubs, would have followed.

 

[HPKS]

I already said. Financial problems of the day aside, far and away the biggest financial injection in the 30-odd years since expansion into WA and SA has been television.

The VFL covered Melbourne and Sydney, which were and remain by far the biggest television markets. Had the VFL not expanded into WA and SA, it’s television income of the past thirty years would still have dwarfed that of the WAFL and SANFL.

The rest of the economics, and players, and possibly clubs, would have followed.

And been dwarfed by every other national sport.

 

[Kwality]

OK let's have a look at the previous posters suggestion and do that, so we replace 8 of the 12 vic clubs as suggested. Do you think all of the members and supporters would just accept that and follow a new team that comes from another state? If you think that would be the case you're the one that's kidding themselves.

Safe to say those paying members and supporters would be lost from the game forever and the following generations

As far as Sydney and Brisbane go, it's obvious they're only up and about when the team is doing well - Bris is a fine example. The only rusted on supporters of those clubs are ex pat vics for the rest the game is just a passing interest, if they're winning things are good if they're not well meh and the interest drops off.

North? Granted they don't have a very large supporter base and they have 30K members, so why don't HQ move them? Probably because there's at least 50 -70k paying members and supporters. Move them and you lose the bulk of their supporters and members and the following generations

How well are gws and gc going in the non footy state interest? I'll just rest my case right there.

All of these romantic ideas of culling or moving clubs, seriously that would mean all that fan base is just going to accept it! Anyone who suggests that is not taking into consideration the fan bases of the clubs they want to cull or move.

Not sure we are that far apart on this C'bush, my thoughts:

Having been thru losing my side (Subi) at the highest level, effectively then have the playing list stripped of its best players for a new side in a national comp (even though still named the Victorian Football League), who also was going to play at Subi Oval, I have a fair idea of what I, what my family & mates, what we all went thru - it took a couple of years as you can see from the Eagles crowds across the early years.
West Coast Eagles Crowds and Attendances

Year Games Total .. Average

1995 24 705,024 .. 29,376
1994 25 736,518 .. 29,461
1993 22 658,442 .. 29,929
1992 25 709,041 .. 28,362
1991 26 809,822 .. 31,147
1990 26 668,450 .. 25,710
1989 22 339,592 .. 15,436
1988 23 443,381 .. 19,277
1987 22 445,662 .. 20,257



South Aus followed a few years later, same dance, different step - sorry, Vic footy fans are no more or less fans than WA, SA or Tas - yep its hard, but its the game we love, being played by the same players as were there the year before. WA sucked it up, SA sucked it up, so I dont buy Victorians would sook in the corner. Heartland can not be usefully compared with the Rugby States, different set of hurdles.

I'm anti moving clubs, I can tell you IF the VFL tried to force a club on West Aus it would have taken as long to garner support as the Sydney Swans - clubs interstate need to be local, not admin & assistant coaches tipped out of Melbourne. Strip the licence, gift the playing list & player contracts to the new body, let it pick its own coach.

The problem is there was no long term plan when the Eagles & Bears joined the Swans in the 80s, the VFL was in survival mode. IF there has been a long term plan for the game nationally I've missed it.
You could argue the John Elliot/ Dick Seddon national plan that preceded action by the VFL had more future planning than the VFL.

 

[ItsAllAboutMe]

Isn't Spurs rebuilding a stadium and moving to a modern one a classic example of uprooting traditionalism for modernity (re: cash, plastic feels, more of a franchisey look).

Maybe, but Spurs have been careful to make sure the new WHL is nothing like the plastic emirates stadium..

 

[Bomberboyokay]

I would much rather go see Carlton play in front of 20k at Princes Park than at the MCG infront of 80k.

As an old man would you really rather stand in the mud and rain for two and a half hours on a cold winter's night than go to the MCG?

 

[dockshark]

the eagles bailed out the VFL

Nope. The WAFC bailed out the VFL.

 

[Kwality]

when?
Eagles formed 1986.
WAFC formed 1989.

 

[ItsAllAboutMe]

As an old man would you really rather stand in the mud and rain for two and a half hours on a cold winter's night than go to the MCG?

Absolutely, which is why I watch local footy most weekends but have only been to a handful of AFL games in the past decade.

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

We certainly have too many teams in the top competition.

 

[Kwality]

We certainly have too many teams in the top competition.

plus not enough first graders yet still many want more teams, more 2nd tier players ...

 

[Carringbush2010]

Vic footy fans are no more or less fans than WA, SA

I've never stated that vic fans are more or less than wa or sa - it's just that there's a lot more of them overwhelmingly so. In fact the vic population outstrips wa,sa and tas combined by 1.5 million approx and that is just a blunt reality and is probably a reflection of the pseudo national comp that we have. So I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

I still maintain that if we went by the previous posters suggestion we wouldn't have any comp in a national sense, surely you can see that the supporters would vote with their feet and remotes if they're teams were to be culled or relocated. It's simple logic, would you follow the comp if WC were culled or relocated? I know if Collingwood were to be culled I know I wouldn't be following the comp anymore.

 

[Carringbush2010]

And the AFL don't have the power to move them. THe AFL don't own North Melbourne. All the AFL can really do is remove North's licence to compete in the AFL competition (with the agreement of 75%+ of the clubs). As they did with Fitzroy.

Allow me to rephrase the question to Kwality. So why don't HQ remove Norths licence to compete e with the blessing of 75% of the other clubs? Probably because there's at least 50k paying and TV watching supporters and members that they don't want to lose. Lose them and you lose them forever including the following generations, and this seems to be supported more so with the figures Roylion has provided.

 

[kirky]

I already said. Financial problems of the day aside, far and away the biggest financial injection in the 30-odd years since expansion into WA and SA has been television.

The VFL covered Melbourne and Sydney, which were and remain by far the biggest television markets. Had the VFL not expanded into WA and SA, it’s television income of the past thirty years would still have dwarfed that of the WAFL and SANFL.

The rest of the economics, and players, and possibly clubs, would have followed.

You needed both the SA and WA audiences for national coverage - Vic clubs plus Sydney was not going to cut it (hell Sydney had been up in Sydney for 8 years and yet some VFL clubs were neatly bankrupt plus Sydney had to rely on circuses to get fans engaged) and the additional of those two footy mad states enabled the AFL to approach national sponsors.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Easy peasey. 12 clubs, every team plays each other H&A, 22 rounds.
Collingwood
Essendon
Richmond
Carlton
Hawthorn
Geelong
Brisbane
Sydney
Adelaide
Port Adelaide
West Coast
Fremantle

The Suns and Giants fold, Bulldogs, Saints, Demons and Kangaroos play in the VFL. Implement an AFL Reserves competition. All done, get on the job Gill the Dill.

I'd imagine the supporters of those you suggest kicking out of the 1st tier would disagree with your idea. Footscray and North have their own VFL teams already, in any case you're throwing out - hazard a guess anywhere between qtr and half million paying supporters and members and the league will never regain them and their future generations.

Whilst I agree the 2 new franchises should fold, it's very clear HQ won't have a bar of it.

Thanks for havin the Pies on top BTW!

 

[Carringbush2010]

Group the Vic clubs into 4 'representative' teams to arrive at 12 for the national comp: the Verticals (Hawthorn, North, Collingwood), Horizontals (Geelong, Western Bulldogs, St Kilda), Diagonals (Richmond, Essendon) and Stripeless (Carlton, Melbourne).

In other words lose the entire vic supporter base?

 

[Carringbush2010]

My ideal setup would be separate state leagues, all competetive. State of origin games and perhaps a champions league kind of thing.

Would be amazing.

And probably the only workable idea

 

[Kwality]

Allow me to rephrase the question to Kwality. So why don't HQ remove Norths licence to compete e with the blessing of 75% of the other clubs? Probably because there's at least 50k paying and TV watching supporters and members that they don't want to lose. Lose them and you lose them forever including the following generations, and this seems to be supported more so with the figures Roylion has provided.

Case of pandering to the encumbent (elite?), instead of doing whats best for the game going forward. Roy would have us with a 2nd rate VFL comp not a top shelf comp where ALL the best do battle, e.g most of the Vic faithful didnt ever see the best indigenous player since Polly ever play YET kid themselves the VFL is equivalent of the AFL.
Andy squibbed it with North, loading the comp up with a group of 2nd tier players - WA & SA fans sucked up the national comp, why do you think Vic fans are so precious? They did it when the VFL over ran the VFA, are the current fans unable to accept the VFL was over run by the AFL - elitist indeed, black & white?
,

 

[Billy ray]

If the suns fold or merge in the next 10 years I’ll buy everyone who likes this post a team jumper of their choice.

 

[madmug]

Allow me to rephrase the question to Kwality. So why don't HQ remove Norths licence to compete e with the blessing of 75% of the other clubs? Probably because there's at least 50k paying and TV watching supporters and members that they don't want to lose. Lose them and you lose them forever including the following generations, and this seems to be supported more so with the figures Roylion has provided.

All due respect, & I don't agree with moving clubs, but the AFL 'plan' is for generational change in NSW & Qld to support GWS & GC.

SO, if MN or whoever were culled, how can you say you would lose future generations?

Victorians & the AFL can't have it both ways. You either have generational change to make this a national league, or you don't.

So which is it? Is the AFL wrong? Are they lying? Will GWS & GC always be on the financial tit? Or will they grow & develop

Given the disregard to local & community footy, will those areas in WA, SA, Tas & Vic always strongly support footy despite the AFL's non efforts at that level?.

So does 'generational change' only work one way to grow the game? ie only in NSW & Qld? If a NM were to move, would they not get generational change too?

 

[The_Wookie]

All due respect, & I don't agree with moving clubs, but the AFL 'plan' is for generational change in NSW & Qld to support GWS & GC.

The AFL plan is also not to cut or merge clubs. Entirely possible theres more than one plan here.

SO, if MN or whoever were culled, how can you say you would lose future generations?

You dont cut a club thats been around for some considerable time without losing folks - lots of folks - for that matter.

Victorians & the AFL can't have it both ways. You either have generational change to make this a national league, or you don't.

You can. Doing it right now in fact. And its already a national league.

So which is it? Is the AFL wrong? Are they lying?

Theres a third option. You havent got any idea what the AFL is doing, only that it doesnt involve your pet state enough for your liking.

Will GWS & GC always be on the financial tit? Or will they grow & develop

Took the Swans 30 years, Im pretty sure the AFL recognises the time frames required. They've always talked about 20 year plans and such.

Given the disregard to local & community footy, will those areas in WA, SA, Tas & Vic always strongly support footy despite the AFL's non efforts at that level?.

Probably.

So does 'generational change' only work one way to grow the game? ie only in NSW & Qld? If a NM were to move, would they not get generational change too?

Yes, the difference is one is likely to have significant negative effects.

 

[Kwality]

All due respect, & I don't agree with moving clubs, but the AFL 'plan' is for generational change in NSW & Qld to support GWS & GC.

SO, if MN or whoever were culled, how can you say you would lose future generations?

Victorians & the AFL can't have it both ways. You either have generational change to make this a national league, or you don't.

So which is it? Is the AFL wrong? Are they lying? Will GWS & GC always be on the financial tit? Or will they grow & develop

Given the disregard to local & community footy, will those areas in WA, SA, Tas & Vic always strongly support footy despite the AFL's non efforts at that level?.

So does 'generational change' only work one way to grow the game? ie only in NSW & Qld? If a NM were to move, would they not get generational change too?

I bought the national comp on the basis of seeing ALL the best play - I was sold a pup, we've got way too many players who should be 2nd tier.

I understand Roy losing Fitzroy, I lost Subi, SA fans saw Norwood no longer at the highest level - WA fans sucked it up, SA fans sucked it up but somehow Victorians would chuck the toys out of the cot. Believe that as you will, but I dont buy it, it takes time, time many dont want to give the non heartland clubs.

Its not as if most clubs have not needed extra support from the AFL over time, some have been around for more than 100 years & cant cut it.

 

[Kwality]

You dont cut a club thats been around for some considerable time without losing folks - lots of folks - for that matter.

Seemed to work OK in WA & SA, whats so special about Vic fans?

 

[madmug]

Seemed to work OK in WA & SA, whats so special about Vic fans?

The 100 year or so history of WAFL SANFL clubs really matter not. Its only painful to see the loss of a club from the top level if its a VFL club. Fitzroy still exist. But whats that fact got to do with it.

 

[Jables]

Seemed to work OK in WA & SA, whats so special about Vic fans?

Ah yes, the many WA/SA clubs that were cut from the VFL/AFL. Clubs that were never in this competition, are not really relevant to it and never will be.