Ten And Seven Win AFL Rights - Hooray

[Wardy]

They have matched PBL - and have won it - no more Eddie - I think I might just have to go and have a celebratory beverage!

[AussieAnge]

Originally posted by Wardy
They have matched PBL - and have won it - no more Eddie - I think I might just have to go and have a celebratory beverage!

Yippee! A champagne by any chance?;)

[Wardy]

Originally posted by AussieAnge
Yippee! A champagne by any chance?;)

You bet your bippy!

[Jeffers1984]

Seven/Ten secure rights (http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=241921)

What will happen to Fox Footy is my question now.

[Refried Noodle]

Well apparently 3 games will be sold to fox

but one is rumoured to be the live friday night slot so after all we still may not get friday night footy til after 10.:mad:

here's hoping not, but it's definately much better than 1am (which would be the time slot in 9's offer).

[DST]

Originally posted by Jeffers1984
Seven/Ten secure rights (http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=241921)

What will happen to Fox Footy is my question now.

One of two things:

1) 7 & 10 will sell the rights to Foxtel for three live games and all replays and the station will continue on as is.

2) 7 & 10 might just combine and produce their own pay tv footy channel and then sell it to Foxtel.

While the first seems the most likely, it maybe easier for Foxtel to just buy the channel from 7 & 10 as a pay tv channel to include in the basic package. That way they don't need to fork out the big bucks to the run the station and they get the added bonus of getting all the 7 & 10 content outside of football like Talking Footy, Before the Game etc to televise during the week. They would also get better access to archives of the games this way as well.

I think the 7 & 10 pay tv channel idea has some merit.

DST

[DST]

Originally posted by Refried Noodle
Well apparently 3 games will be sold to fox

but one is rumoured to be the live friday night slot so after all we still may not get friday night footy til after 10.:mad:

here's hoping not, but it's definately much better than 1am (which would be the time slot in 9's offer).

You will get the option to pay for it live on Friday night or wait until 10.30 to see an abridged version on 7.

I think that is a rather good compromise, if things improve ratings wise then 7 may look to go earlier.

One thing is for sure we will at least be given at least a couple of games live on Friday night after 2006 which will be good from an exposure point of view for sponsors and club marketing. In this situation 7 would just televise our games live on a Friday night on FTA.

DST
:D

[THERBS]

Good news. I was sick of Nine stuffing up footy coverage and the smugness of Eddie. Will Cometti go back to 7? Will JB jump ships?

[hammo]

As far as I'm aware 7 hasn't made any commitments re: Friday nights so I think the champagne popping is very premature.

Under the 9 bid, Fox Footy would have showed Friday night live into Sydney.

Channel 7 & 10 haven't even spoken to Foxtel and its highly unlikely 7 would take the hit of going live up against the league on 9. What's to stop 7 from preventing any live coverage until it shows the game at 10.30 for example?? (Hopefully the AFL sorts this out before the deal is signed, unlike last time).

Whatever people's views on 9 and Eddie, Fox Footy's replays of old 7 games has reminded me how pathetic their coverage actually was.

[Damien]

Great news. Really dislike 9 and their coverage.

My guess is that 7 and 10 have matched everything 9 was offering including whatever Northern State coverage was promised.

Can't wait for all the details to emerge.

[Bas]

Originally posted by hammo
What's to stop 7 from preventing any live coverage until it shows the game at 10.30 for example?? (Hopefully the AFL sorts this out before the deal is signed, unlike last time).

Whatever people's views on 9 and Eddie, Fox Footy's replays of old 7 games has reminded me how pathetic their coverage actually was.

My greatest fear in all this. Everyone in northern states will have to wait till 10:30 pm in northern states.

Bruce calling the footy again..............................special!

[Glenn]

As someone without Pay TV, 10:30pm timeslot for Friday Night Football wouldn't be to bad, at least it wouldn't be shunted to early the next morning if at all due to Tennis,Golf etc

[Reggi]

A Premiership and no more Dwayne Russell. There is a god, now if 10 will drop Tim Lane, victory will be complete.

This is great - I hate channel 9 coverage it's crap. Well done 7 and especially 10 - a good outcome for us to I suspect.

I suspect this is really good news for everyone north of the Murrumbidgee

[j s]

The way I read the announcement ("negotiation on details" etc) 7/10 has matvched 9's cash offer up front but has left the deal open for negotiations for some of the "developing markets" stuff (presumably with some financial tradeoff)

[Damien]

Originally posted by j s
The way I read the announcement ("negotiation on details" etc) 7/10 has matvched 9's cash offer up front but has left the deal open for negotiations for some of the "developing markets" stuff (presumably with some financial tradeoff)

CEO of 10 tonight said that it wasn't simply meeting the cash, they had to meet the conditions that were agreed to with PBL.

It unfortuantly allowed 10 to remove their initial agreement to telecast all 22 Saturday night games into Sydney live because PBL's bid was accepted without that condition.

Overall it seems as if it is going to be quite positive though..(fingers crossed!)

I really do think the AFL were mad for not accepting the initial offer from 7 and 10. It wasn't that far removed from PBL's and ensured Sydney Saturday night live AFL on Free to Air......big opportunity missed.

[j s]

Originally posted by Damien
CEO of 10 tonight said that it wasn't simply meeting the cash, they had to meet the conditions that were agreed to with PBL.

It unfortuantly allowed 10 to remove their initial agreement to telecast all 22 Saturday night games into Sydney live because PBL's bid was accepted without that condition.
That's what I mean - I think they matched the PBL conditions in order to win, but also included an offer to negotiate a return of at least some of the "developing market" things

[dread and might]

Originally posted by Reggi
now if 10 will drop Tim Lane, victory will be complete.

[/B]

Two words: Andrew Maher

[cruiser]

Joy oh joy. Sandy and Bruce are coming back!!! I hope they sign Dennis back. And tell Dermie to get stuffed.

[blinddog]

no more Eddie - It's a good thing I have been in the pub all arvo

[Dave]

YAY!

9 was never going to sacrifice their Sydney Friday night League coverage so they can go eat chain.

[Provost]

Originally posted by Damien
It unfortuantly allowed 10 to remove their initial agreement to telecast all 22 Saturday night games into Sydney live because PBL's bid was accepted without that condition. Yeah, but when was a 30min delay live anyway??

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by Provost
Yeah, but when was a 30min delay live anyway??

The game was still in progress while you watched the first three quarters. :confused:

[goswannie14]

Well all of you guys north of the Murray, I do hope you get a good deal with this new coverage deal...however as a Melbourne based supporter of the premier team, I am a little concerned that we are heading back to the bad old days, although it may be improved by the fact that it is not only 7 coverage that we havew to put up with. But we still have to put up with Walls, and unfortunatel we are goignto be stuck with that idiot McAvaney again. I was really enjoying not having to listen to him.

[RogueSwan]

Originally posted by cruiser
Joy oh joy. Sandy and Bruce are coming back!!! I hope they sign Dennis back. And tell Dermie to get stuffed.

I am hoping Dermie can find a gig on either 7 or 10 as I really enjoyed his calls. Ch9 telecast was not really that bad, but I am glad they lost out. I really dislike just about everything else they do.

[Zlatorog]

Originally posted by RogueSwan
I am hoping Dermie can find a gig on either 7 or 10 as I really enjoyed his calls. Ch9 telecast was not really that bad, but I am glad they lost out. I really dislike just about everything else they do.

Agree, I hope Dermie will stay in some capacity as a commentator either with 7 or 10.

[Jeffers1984]

Originally posted by Zlatorog
Agree, I hope Dermie will stay in some capacity as a commentator either with 7 or 10.
Seconded. I am also in the minority that enjoys Dermie's calls. He just puts a different dimension to the call compared to other commentators. (e.g. commenting on Micky O creeping to the left or right when taking a set shot to improve his angle).

[hammo]

This might shed some more light on the likely coverage

Source (http://www.smh.com.au/news/afl/delayed-starts-and-split-viewing-likely/2006/01/05/1136387572869.html)

[liz]

Originally posted by Jeffers1984
Seconded. I am also in the minority that enjoys Dermie's calls. He just puts a different dimension to the call compared to other commentators. (e.g. commenting on Micky O creeping to the left or right when taking a set shot to improve his angle).

I'm another who enjoy's Dermie's calls. He provides far more varied and interesting insights into some of the nuances of the game than most, especially Mr' State the Banal And Bleeding Obvious In A Way That Makes Me Sound Like I Think I'm A Genius' Walls.

[Sanecow]

I would enjoy Dermie's comments if even half of the off-the-ball player movements, nudges, shepherds etc that he thinks he saw panned out on the replay. As it is he mainly imagines things and hoots at off-camera biff. Still, better than Walls and Blight.

[Lucky Knickers]

Is Dermie still the Today show weather man???? Might be thinking bigger than footy for his career!

Do the commentators structure their contracts around the TV rights?

I'll be devastated if Blighty (woops woops woops) isn't on any more!

Comets will do the swimming at the Commonwealth Games then flip to 7 or 10 (hopefully).

[Jeffers1984]

I would of been happy with the result either way, just as long as there is still a 24 hr dedicated AFL channel on my Foxtel from 2007 onwards.

[NMWBloods]

Great - so commentators like Sandy Roberts, Doug Hawkins, Tim Watson are back...

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Great - so commentators like Sandy Roberts, Doug Hawkins, Tim Watson are back... Yeah...going to make for great viewing isn't it?:eek:

[Sanecow]

It's like trading an Edsel for a P76.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by Sanecow
It's like trading an Edsel for a P76. On current footy commentating, I'd rather have the Edsel:o The only way it could get worse is if they get Andrew O'Keefe involved:mad:

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by goswannie14
Yeah...going to make for great viewing isn't it?:eek: Tragic if they roll all those guys out again!

[satchmopugdog]

Tragic if they roll all those eyes out again!!!!

[Damien]

AFL Reveals asset buying plan (http://www.theage.com.au/news/afl/league-reveals-assetbuying-plan/2006/01/06/1136387625572.html?page=2)


In other major developments from the TV rights deal:

The AFL chief confirmed that, having matched Nine's bid, Seven and Ten were now contractually committed to eight games on free-to-air television and live broadcasts into Brisbane and Sydney on Friday and Saturday nights, although the deal allowed them to negotiate a pay-TV carrier, such as current broadcaster Foxtel, subject to AFL approval.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by Damien
AFL Reveals asset buying plan (http://www.theage.com.au/news/afl/league-reveals-assetbuying-plan/2006/01/06/1136387625572.html?page=2) It all sounds to good to be true. What do they always say...if it sounds to good to be true it probably is...:tongue in cheek:

Now all we need to do is get 7 to show The Amazing Race, Stargate and other shows at regular times:mad:

[Charlie]

Originally posted by goswannie14


Now all we need to do is get 7 to show The Amazing Race, Stargate and other shows at regular times:mad: [/B]

Amen to that!

I'd love Seven to pick up Commetti, Brayshaw, Schwass and Healy. Dermott can stay where he is. Wouldn't mind seeing them get Lyon, but it's doubtful that would happen.

[NMWBloods]

Brereton is entertaining, particularly with Commetti.

Lyon won't leave Nine.

[The Undertaker]

Originally posted by goswannie14
On current footy commentating, I'd rather have the Edsel:o The only way it could get worse is if they get Andrew O'Keefe involved:mad: I do hope Andrew O'Keefe is not involved!!!

How did that galah ever get a job on tv is beyond me!:mad:

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by The Undertaker
I do hope Andrew O'Keefe is not involved!!!

How did that galah ever get a job on tv is beyond me!:mad: That wanker is such a......wanker:mad: It's beyond us how he got a job on TV too, that laugh:mad: , the superiority complex:mad: ...mind you that pretty much sums up channel 7 in Melbourne. ..and they are worse now "Footy is coming home", what a crock of @@@@. I much preferred the days when every station had a replay on at sometime on Saturday night. It wasn't bad, you still got a 4 out of 6 chance of seeing your team on TV. But having said that I don't want to go back to the days of the VFL.

Interesting to note that most non-Victorian Swans supporters are happy that 7/10 has the rights, but the majority of Victorian Swans supporters seem to be unhappy about it. I feel that we(The Victorian basedSwans supporters) have always been treated with contempt by 7, whereas we have had a better go from 9. I know that includes fixturing etc. But then that is how 7 Melbourne treats most of its viewers of shows such as "The Amazing Race", "Stargate SG-1" (I can hear Charlie getting worked up already), "Stargate Atlantis", and numerous other shows that they move around the timeslots at their whim regardless of viewer numbers. I just don't trust 7 in Melbourne, but I trust 9 Melbourne a lot more.

Well that's my opinion anyway...I will now take my defensive stance as I await the attacks/disagreement from everyone else on here;)

[NMWBloods]

I've found the coverage by 9 and 10 to be good - far superior than the old 7 coverage.

What was the problem with 9 for Sydney fans?

[cruiser]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
What was the problem with 9 for Sydney fans?
Its commitment first to NRL. There is no way Ch 9 in Sydney would show Fri night AFL until after the NRL had finished ie after 11pm at night.

[cruiser]

Originally posted by goswannie14
But then that is how 7 Melbourne treats most of its viewers of shows such as "The Amazing Race", "Stargate SG-1" (I can hear Charlie getting worked up already), "Stargate Atlantis", and numerous other shows that they move around the timeslots at their whim regardless of viewer numbers. I just don't trust 7 in Melbourne, but I trust 9 Melbourne a lot more.
You're obviously not a fan of shows on Ch 9 such as Star Trek, Six Feet Under, West Wing etc. I think that Ch 9's treatment of viewers is worse than 7's.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by cruiser
You're obviously not a fan of shows on Ch 9 such as Star Trek, Six Feet Under, West Wing etc. I think that Ch 9's treatment of viewers is worse than 7's. You're right...I don't watch any of them;)

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by cruiser
Its commitment first to NRL. There is no way Ch 9 in Sydney would show Fri night AFL until after the NRL had finished ie after 11pm at night. Unusual... I don't think I've heard people complain before about not being able to see other teams play...

[liz]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Unusual... I don't think I've heard people complain before about not being able to see other teams play...

Some of us like watching football, not just the Swans.

The worst thing with Nine was that games would often start nearly an hour after their advertised time - and then run until well past two o'clock in the morning.

Mind you, Ten wasn't much better with its non-Swans Saturday night games.

[RogueSwan]

Originally posted by liz

The worst thing with Nine was that games would often start nearly an hour after their advertised time - and then run until well past two o'clock in the morning.

IIRC I saw a game at 6am Saturday morning (Wimbledon?) which was much better than waiting til after midnight to see a game. If 7 can't commit to 10:30pm friday night start, at the latest, put it on before the saturday morning cartoons!

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Unusual... I don't think I've heard people complain before about not being able to see other teams play... Bizarre isn't it,:confused: I don't care what time other teams are televised, as long as the Swans are being televised I am happy.:D

I'll watch Friday night footy if the Swans are on, otherwise, if there is nothing better on I'll watch it, but non Swans games are not a priority. I have better things to do with my time...like post on here:p

[NMWBloods]

Not really bizarre. When I lived in Sydney I found it exceptionally frustrating that I couldn't get Friday night games, although it was great to get Saturday games live. I like watching football, not just the Swans. I knew there were a few other people here like that, but I didn't think it was that many.

[Eala ?ireann]

This can only be good! Don't need to see Eddie Maguire besmirching my good family name anymore!!!

(Any chance we'll get rid of the ads after every goal now, please, pretty please - I'm begging!)

[Eala ?ireann]

BTW, I find it totally bizarre that people would only watch matches with their own team playing - very, very weird.

[FredFlintstone]

Originally posted by Eala ?ireann


(Any chance we'll get rid of the ads after every goal now, please, pretty please - I'm begging!) [/B]


No way, no chance of that happening now not after the huge amount of cash 7/10 have forked out....they need to recoup that money somehow and advertising is the first place they will start, so expect to see more ads and not necessarily after the goals either.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Not really bizarre. When I lived in Sydney I found it exceptionally frustrating that I couldn't get Friday night games, although it was great to get Saturday games live. I like watching football, not just the Swans. I knew there were a few other people here like that, but I didn't think it was that many. I should expand...I just find it strange that people get so het up about what time all footy matches are telecast. Maybe it has something to do with having grown up in Melbourne and mostly in the past getting to watch any game I wanted to watch. I guess IMO there are more important things in life than simply watching football for the sake of watching football. I did that in my teenage years, but at 43, with a new bub, priorities have definitely changed.

I also wanted to watch whatever footy I could when I lived in Townsville, to escape from the League hype, especially when the Cowboys were launched. I also had to stoop to reading The Australian newspaper as it was the only one with some sort of AFL coverage. It was pretty hard to get hold of one in the Officers Mess on a Monday morning though.

I must admit, whilst I like a good game of footy, no matter who is playing, I am still trying to work out why people are so uptight about Friday night games telecast in Sydney when we hardly ever play on Friday nights (finals excepted of course).

My best conclusion is that when you live in an AFL dominated state where saturation coverage is the go for 12 months of the year, when you see a match isn't that important, it is that fact that you can see the match.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by Eala ?ireann
(Any chance we'll get rid of the ads after every goal now, please, pretty please - I'm begging!) You would have to be kidding, which network do you think introduced that in the first place??? I'll give you a hint, it was a commercial station and it wasn't 9 or 10.

Now we will also get the stupid cross promotion that 7 has become expert at particularly when the tennis is on.

(SANDY) Bruce, did you see the previews of desperate housewives?

(BRUCE) No Sandy, tell me about it.

(SANDY) Oh it was blah blah blah

(BRUCE) So Sandy when is it going to be on?

It really made me puke, and that was only the start of it.

[Charlie]

Generally you can make the same criticisms for all commercial networks - obviously you're not a cricket fan, or you would have listened too often to Mark Taylor pretending that he loves some show that he's never seen.

For me, the clincher is the attitude that Seven and Nine took to footy. Yes, Seven made a lot of money out of footy (which is fine) but they gave a lot back, too. You could rely on Seven providing ample footy news even in the middle of January. You could rely on Seven to televise the draft - not because it's high-rating television but because footy fans and draft hopefuls want to see who ends up where. You could rely on Seven to provide saturation coverage during GF Week - with the marathon the night before the game and all.

Nine never did any of that. Their contribution to footy is a couple of games (in the middle of the night if they aren't guaranteed to win the ratings) and an increasingly tired variety show that has less and less to do with football every year. With the Packers, it's all about the money. They don't give a crap about the sport - which Seven Melbourne did.

[liz]

Originally posted by goswannie14

Now we will also get the stupid cross promotion that 7 has become expert at particularly when the tennis is on.

(SANDY) Bruce, did you see the previews of desperate housewives?

(BRUCE) No Sandy, tell me about it.

(SANDY) Oh it was blah blah blah

(BRUCE) So Sandy when is it going to be on?

It really made me puke, and that was only the start of it.

I take it you never watch the cricket on Nine then?

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Eala ?ireann
(Any chance we'll get rid of the ads after every goal now, please, pretty please - I'm begging!) Maybe if we kicked more goals...

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by liz
I take it you never watch the cricket on Nine then? Yeah, but who listens to the commentators?:frown Isn't that what the radio is for:cool:

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by Charlie
For me, the clincher is the attitude that Seven and Nine took to footy. Yes, Seven made a lot of money out of footy (which is fine) but they gave a lot back, too. You could rely on Seven providing ample footy news even in the middle of January. You could rely on Seven to televise the draft - not because it's high-rating television but because footy fans and draft hopefuls want to see who ends up where. You could rely on Seven to provide saturation coverage during GF Week - with the marathon the night before the game and all. I can agree with you on most of this, but it is way longer than 4 years since 7 stopped showing the GF marathon. It has to be at least 10 years if not longer.

I also think that 7 has always been interested in the money. In the past there was one year when 7 weren't prepared to pay what was a cheap price for the rights, in the end they went to the ABC, which, apart from the technology etc improvements now, was probably the best coverage of football we have ever had. So I have to disagree with that point to.

[NMWBloods]

Yep - I seem to recall that 7 cut back on some of their football coverage in the last few years, such as the GF marathon.

[Damien]

LOL Goswannies, your hatred of 7 is pretty funny. Eddie would be pretty proud of your continued effort throughout this thread!

They have the rights from 2007-2011. Deal with it lol

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by Damien
LOL Goswannies, your hatred of 7 is pretty funny. Eddie would be pretty proud of your continued effort throughout this thread!

They have the rights from 2007-2011. Deal with it lol Just giving it back to those who are of a similar thought but in a different direction.

BTW Eddie is not the boss of 9:p ...having grown up with 7 in Melbourne there are many here who feel the same about them. I can't comment on Sydney because I don't know it well enough. What has ticked me off here is that there are some on this forum who treat 7 as the Messiah and Saviour of Football coverage. having lived in Melbourne and Townsville during the previous reign I think those opinions are crap. 7 treated viewers in both of those areas with contempt, firstly with their football coverage, and then with the rest of their programming.

I think that all three commercial staions are the same, except IMO in Melbourne 7 is worse that 9 and I'm not within the demographic for 10 to worry about making a comment on them.:eek:

[Charlie]

They did the GF marathon a lot less than 10 years ago. I remember watching several of them (I never managed to stay awake all night though), and I was nine years old 10 years ago.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by Charlie
They did the GF marathon a lot less than 10 years ago. I remember watching several of them (I never managed to stay awake all night though), and I was nine years old 10 years ago. I never got past about 2.00 am when I was younger. You could be right, but they had certainly scrapped them before they lost the TV rights. They could have still shown it as they had all the footage up until 4 years ago.

[OldE]

My major problem with 9 was the way they pushed the footy back past the scheduled times. The International Rules this year started 2 hours after it was scheduled to, IIRC. Also, I was concerned about finals, with Channel 9 obliged to both the NRL and AFL. The limited coverage of finals was bad enough this year, but I imagine it would be far worse with a network whose first committment in NSW is to the NRL.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by Damien
LOL Goswannies, your hatred of 7 is pretty funny. Eddie would be pretty proud of your continued effort throughout this thread!

They have the rights from 2007-2011. Deal with it lol Am I to surmise from this comment, and your lack of comments to those that hate 9 that you are in the "7 is wonderful, 9 is evil" camp?

Yes I dislike 7, but there are many here who dislike 9 with the same passion. If you are a "super moderator" surely you should be unbiased and having a laugh at them too. :tongue in cheek: I am assuming that you read this thread http://www.redandwhiteonline.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13116

I will wait and see:frown

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by eirinn
My major problem with 9 was the way they pushed the footy back past the scheduled times. The International Rules this year started 2 hours after it was scheduled to, IIRC. Also, I was concerned about finals, with Channel 9 obliged to both the NRL and AFL. The limited coverage of finals was bad enough this year, but I imagine it would be far worse with a network whose first committment in NSW is to the NRL. What was limited about finals coverage this year?:confused:

[Damien]

Originally posted by goswannie14
Am I to surmise from this comment, and your lack of comments to those that hate 9 that you are in the "7 is wonderful, 9 is evil" camp?

Yes I dislike 7, but there are many here who dislike 9 with the same passion. If you are a "super moderator" surely you should be unbiased and having a laugh at them too. :tongue in cheek:

I will wait and see:frown

I don't hate Channel 9 at all, I do think they are fairly conservative, but I just think they are bad for football - that is if anyone wants Football to go beyond the Southern States.

I don't think any network is wonderful, can't really say I would ever have that much attachment to a TV network, but AFL is a huge sport, it deserves to be the priority of the rights holders. AFL will never be anything but an equal priority with League and Cricket on Nine. The growth possibilities on Seven and Ten are far higher than it could ever be on Nine.

Not to say there are not some minor issues with Seven and their international rugby committments - even though the Wallabies do generally play on a Sat night and Ten will be covering AFL on that night.

I am also not quite sure why a moderator has to be unbiased on a TV Rights deal :confused: or for that matter not able to be amused by your million posts on this topic.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by goswannie14
I never got past about 2.00 am when I was younger. You could be right, but they had certainly scrapped them before they lost the TV rights. They could have still shown it as they had all the footage up until 4 years ago.

Would you blame them for not bothering in 2001? I can't remember if they did it that year, but I don't ever recall not having the GF marathon, or the u18 GF, or the year-in-review special, or the draft, or the All-Australian dinner.... you know, all those things that never rated but they put on anyway because it was footy.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by eirinn
My major problem with 9 was the way they pushed the footy back past the scheduled times. The International Rules this year started 2 hours after it was scheduled to, IIRC. Also, I was concerned about finals, with Channel 9 obliged to both the NRL and AFL. The limited coverage of finals was bad enough this year, but I imagine it would be far worse with a network whose first committment in NSW is to the NRL.

:confused:

Channel Ten had exclusive rights to the finals. For the entire 2002-06 agreement.

[Damien]

Originally posted by Charlie
Would you blame them for not bothering in 2001? I can't remember if they did it that year, but I don't ever recall not having the GF marathon, or the u18 GF, or the year-in-review special, or the draft, or the All-Australian dinner.... you know, all those things that never rated but they put on anyway because it was footy.

Yep, 7 were very good in that regard, add Talking Footy (despite views on certain hosts and guests at time), that was a ratings loser that they kept going.

[Damien]

Originally posted by Charlie
:confused:

Channel Ten had exclusive rights to the finals. For the entire 2002-06 agreement.

Think she knows that but was referring to how it would be under 9.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by Damien
Think she knows that but was referring to how it would be under 9.

Ah, yes I see. Sorry Eirinn - didn't read it properly. :)

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by Damien
I am also not quite sure why a moderator has to be unbiased on a TV Rights deal :confused: or for that matter not able to be amused by your million posts on this topic. You're just upset because I post more than you :tongue in cheek::p

On TV networks, I'm a bit like Dave is with politicians...can't live with them, can't live without them. If I had the money I would have Foxtel, so wouldn't have to worry about which network had the rights.

I have posted on here because I am trying to understand why people see the 7/10 deal and what time you see a football match is so important and I enjoy a good debate. As I have said previously as long as I get to see my team play I don't really care what time the coverage is...and there is always the DVR or VCR if needs be.

I don't recall some of the things that Charlie said were televised ever being televised (which doesn't mean that he is wrong), however I well remember that if you weren't going to the GF in years gone by then it was great to see the U 19 and reserves GF before the big one. Don't know if 10 has been showing the U 18 GF or not, as now there is no real club connection to that comp I am not that interested. But that whoile argument is one that nbeeds to be taken up with the AFL, they are the ones who have changed GF day making it an event rather than a Footy match.

I think the 7 coverage was very tired before the last rights deal, I am hoping that it will be up to scratch when they next start to show AFL in 2007.

As I said, I don't really care that much who is showing the matches as long as the Swans matches are shown, and with us now being a consistently top team, that is bound to happen on the majority of weekends. I just don't undersatnd the hatred that so many people have for 9 and their coverage of the AFL, when it is similar to my experience of the coverage of 7 in the past.

BTW my comment about moderating comes from the dictionary definitionDictionary definition of moderator (http://www.onelook.com/?w=moderator&ls=a)

[JF_Bay22_SCG]

Originally posted by cruiser
Its commitment first to NRL. There is no way Ch 9 in Sydney would show Fri night AFL until after the NRL had finished ie after 11pm at night.

It should also be noted that in 2007 the NRl will be having TWO Friday Night matches in Nsw & Qld (one live at 7:30pm & another on delay at 9:30). Considering they have to squeeze Nightline in there too (plus Wimbledon, the golf etc etc), there would be night where he telecast would not start much before midnight. For the game to grow into the mindset of NSW people, this is just NOT acceptable.

Channel 7 did treat the Sydney AFL public with a great deal of contempt as well. I succinctly recall matches in the late 80s being replayed at 12pm for one hour THE NEXT WEEK before the 2pm Saturday game from Melbourne. They rarely if ever showed our games live on Saturday nights. And were decidedly half-hearted about promotion of the game in NSW (untill the 96 finals where of course like everyone else they ALL hopped on the bandwagon :o)

We will just have to see how things pan out. The most important thing that our Victorian viewers must understand out of all this is that whilst you may have been treated poorly by Channel 7 in terms of telecasts etc etc, you will not become alienated from the code as a result of it. In Sydney people are THAT fickle, and WILL get their backs up at something like that. We simply can NOT afford that, especially after having made breakthroughs into the midset of the average Sydneysider like never before thanks to the Grand Final win.

Hopefully common sense will prevail. But with Demetriou in charge, the propogation of evil is only ever a moment's notice away.

JF

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by JF_Bay22_SCG
It should also be noted that in 2007 the NRl will be having TWO Friday Night matches in Nsw & Qld (one live at 7:30pm & another on delay at 9:30). Considering they have to squeeze Nightline in there too (plus Wimbledon, the golf etc etc), there would be night where he telecast would not start much before midnight. For the game to grow into the mindset of NSW people, this is just NOT acceptable.

Channel 7 did treat the Sydney AFL public with a great deal of contempt as well. I succinctly recall matches in the late 80s being replayed at 12pm for one hour THE NEXT WEEK before the 2pm Saturday game from Melbourne. They rarely if ever showed our games live on Saturday nights. And were decidedly half-hearted about promotion of the game in NSW (untill the 96 finals where of course like everyone else they ALL hopped on the bandwagon :o)

We will just have to see how things pan out. The most important thing that our Victorian viewers must understand out of all this is that whilst you may have been treated poorly by Channel 7 in terms of telecasts etc etc, you will not become alienated from the code as a result of it. In Sydney people are THAT fickle, and WILL get their backs up at something like that. We simply can NOT afford that, especially after having made breakthroughs into the midset of the average Sydneysider like never before thanks to the Grand Final win.

Hopefully common sense will prevail. But with Demetriou in charge, the propogation of evil is only ever a moment's notice away.

JF

Thanks JF, thats the most succinct overview of the whole thing I have heard on here, including the faults of both 7 and 9. Thanks mate.;)

[robbieando]

Originally posted by Charlie
Would you blame them for not bothering in 2001? I can't remember if they did it that year, but I don't ever recall not having the GF marathon, or the u18 GF, or the year-in-review special, or the draft, or the All-Australian dinner.... you know, all those things that never rated but they put on anyway because it was footy.

Just to clear up a few matters, Channel 7 did show the GF marathon in 2001 and in 2002 their first year without the rights had a 3 hour marathon the midnight before the GF. So that puts that myth to bed. Channel Ch7 had Football programming from 8.30pm on the Friday to 6pm on the Saturday, right up until the end of them having the rights.

[Old Royboy]

Too many people are looking at this issue from a selfish point of view. I havn?t seen much mention of the importance of game development in the northern states in this thread. I think this is a major reason why 7 is far more preferable to 9.

Regional areas where the support for AR or RL is fairly evenly divided lost their prime time FTA coverage on Friday nights when 9 took over and had RL shoved down their gullets instead. They can expect to get it back.

For our game to develop it needs some news coverage and publicity, this aspect must improve in 2007, as at present 9 give us nothing.

I would expect that Friday replays will start late, but at least will not be shunted by tennis, golf etc etc as they are on nine. The original 10.30pm committment will have gone by the board in the matching offer, thus 7 will be tempted to delay coverage until after 9?s RL double header is over. At least it will be live on pay, as it was in the C7 days.

Sunday scheduling will be interesting ? it was 7 who initiated the early starts, but with the mooted 5pm twilight games, will we see a return to 2pm starts in 2007?

The most disappointing thing is that the rights are still for 8 games a week. This means that the AFL has committed to an uneven draw and throwing more good money away propping up the Footscray and North Melbourne basket cases.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by Old Royboy
Too many people are looking at this issue from a selfish point of view. I havn?t seen much mention of the importance of game development in the northern states in this thread. I think this is a major reason why 7 is far more preferable to 9.
I did make the comment early on on this or the parrallel thread that my thoughts were froma slfish point of view, so I agree woth you on that score.


The most disappointing thing is that the rights are still for 8 games a week. This means that the AFL has committed to an uneven draw and throwing more good money away propping up the Footscray and North Melbourne basket cases. The problem is that the fat controller (Demetriou) has said that there are no plans to decrease the size of the competition whilst he was in charge, so there are no surprises there. But I agree it is stupid to keep propping up clubs that realistically can't continue to survive in the current competition.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by Old Royboy

The most disappointing thing is that the rights are still for 8 games a week. This means that the AFL has committed to an uneven draw and throwing more good money away propping up the Footscray and North Melbourne basket cases.

The AFL does not come before the clubs. The clubs come before the AFL.

If a club is truly unsustainable (as Fitzroy arguably was in the mid 1990s), then it's time to look at other options like mergers or relocations. However at the moment, the AFL is thriving with the Dogs and Roos where they are. They are therefore sustainable, and they have been VFL/AFL clubs for 80 years. They have a right to be there at the moment. It's not inalienable, but closing down a club with a history that long should be the absolute last resort.

The AFL serves the clubs. It seems to have forgotten that, but its about time the clubs remind them.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by Charlie
The AFL does not come before the clubs. The clubs come before the AFL.

If a club is truly unsustainable (as Fitzroy arguably was in the mid 1990s), then it's time to look at other options like mergers or relocations. However at the moment, the AFL is thriving with the Dogs and Roos where they are. They are therefore sustainable, and they have been VFL/AFL clubs for 80 years. They have a right to be there at the moment. It's not inalienable, but closing down a club with a history that long should be the absolute last resort.

The AFL serves the clubs. It seems to have forgotten that, but its about time the clubs remind them.

So you see relocation as an option for struggling clubs though, since it preserves a club's history?

[SimonH]

Originally posted by Charlie
The AFL does not come before the clubs. The clubs come before the AFL.

If a club is truly unsustainable (as Fitzroy arguably was in the mid 1990s), then it's time to look at other options like mergers or relocations. However at the moment, the AFL is thriving with the Dogs and Roos where they are. They are therefore sustainable, and they have been VFL/AFL clubs for 80 years. They have a right to be there at the moment. It's not inalienable, but closing down a club with a history that long should be the absolute last resort.

The AFL serves the clubs. It seems to have forgotten that, but its about time the clubs remind them. I grant we're getting off topic, but: the AFL is there to ensure a quality Aussie Rules competition, and the clubs provide that competition. It doesn't serve the clubs in the sense that it is written in stone that each of its current clubs must survive, in their current location and form, no matter what. Never has. In all state comps, plenty of clubs went out of business (and others came into existence) in the late 19th/early 20th century, but the comp as a whole rolled on.

The pointy end is: what is the distinction between "truly unsustainable" and "part of a thriving comp"? Zero, apart from the willingness of the league to prop up clubs, through 'one-off competition payments' and other things, who would become bankrupt otherwise. The AFL had the money to ensure that Fitzroy would still exist as an independent entity-- if doing so was a high enough priority for it.

I'm not being a social Darwinist or a nothing-must-stand-in-the-way-of-the-market Friedmanite here. I'm just pointing out that the decision as to which of the marginal old VFL clubs survive, for how long, and on what terms, is a political decision. $780 million seems like a lot of money, but once you divide up all the things the AFL has to do, from grassroots junior footy up, you can spend it all pretty fast.

It's easy to justify doling out an extra $5m to a club if you know it's only a one-off payment in response to some adverse financial circumstances that are unlikely to recur, and the ramifications for the competition of losing that team would be worse. It's hard to justify doling out an extra $5m to a club on the financial brink, if you can't see a financial plan that shows a break-even on the horizon. You're just going to dole out another $5m in a few years time, then $7m after that, then $10m a few years after that... and eventually someone in power will get jack of it, pull the pin, and there will be a merger or relocation.

The fact that 10 clubs out of 12 from the old VFL still exist fundamentally unchanged is a historical anomaly that arises from the fact that there was never a nationwide decision to have a national top-level comp. There was a decision by the VFL to start expanding outwards and rebrand itself as the AFL. Fewer than 62.5% of the fans, and 62.5% of the players, of Aussie Rules live in Victoria now. There is no reason for it to have 62.5% of the teams in the top comp. I don't think the Victorian teams that are unable to financially survive as part of the AFL should fold-- I think they should be where they would always have been if there had ever been a considered approach to developing a national comp: playing in a local Victorian comp (whether it's called 'the VFL' or anything else).

And, to the frenzied cries of the 'these 16 teams forever' believers, the AFL should sit down and work out an ideal, sustainable structure of a national competition. I'd like to see Divisions in the style of UK soccer, but only the bean-counters could answer whether this would be feasible with Australia's greater travel distances and lower population.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by Sanecow
So you see relocation as an option for struggling clubs though, since it preserves a club's history?

In the event that a club is clearly unsustainable on its own AND the AFL cannot afford to keep them running, then the members of that club should be given an option between relocation, merging with another club and folding.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by SimonH
I grant we're getting off topic, but: the AFL is there to ensure a quality Aussie Rules competition, and the clubs provide that competition. It doesn't serve the clubs in the sense that it is written in stone that each of its current clubs must survive, in their current location and form, no matter what. Never has. In all state comps, plenty of clubs went out of business (and others came into existence) in the late 19th/early 20th century, but the comp as a whole rolled on.

The AFL is merely the rebranded and expanded VFL - a body that was created by eight founder clubs and joined by eight others over the years (excluding University). The AFL is nothing more or less than the sum of its clubs. The clubs are the league itself. The 16 clubs are effectively equal partners in the AFL - therefore, the AFL administration are akin to the elected directors and salaried officers of a private company, answerable to shareholders (the clubs).

Somewhere in the past 20 years, this relationship has been forgotten and transposed. The 'AFL' not only behaves as an independent entity, but it controls the clubs! If a club wanted to exercise its rights to leave the AFL, it could not take its names, jumper or logo with it, because they're all trademarks of the AFL! So far letting the AFL off it's rightful leash has cost us one club, and gone agonisingly close to costing us Sydney, the Dogs, Hawthorn and Melbourne as well. I wonder how many more it will cost.


The pointy end is: what is the distinction between "truly unsustainable" and "part of a thriving comp"? Zero, apart from the willingness of the league to prop up clubs, through 'one-off competition payments' and other things, who would become bankrupt otherwise. The AFL had the money to ensure that Fitzroy would still exist as an independent entity-- if doing so was a high enough priority for it.

Precisely the problem. Looking back, the AFL had absolutely no right to throw Fitzroy out of the competition. It should have found a way of saving Fitzroy - even if the only way to do it was to offer the club's directors to place the club in the AFL's administration (as happened with Sydney).


I'm not being a social Darwinist or a nothing-must-stand-in-the-way-of-the-market Friedmanite here. I'm just pointing out that the decision as to which of the marginal old VFL clubs survive, for how long, and on what terms, is a political decision. $780 million seems like a lot of money, but once you divide up all the things the AFL has to do, from grassroots junior footy up, you can spend it all pretty fast.

All of these other aims are due to the inordinate amount of power concentrated in the AFL in the past 20 years. Even in the early 1990s, the AFL was not the governing body of Australian rules football. Now, as the sport's main (sole?) money-maker, it is clear that it must have a role in grassroots football. But the AFL's primary concern must be ensuring that its members survive.


It's easy to justify doling out an extra $5m to a club if you know it's only a one-off payment in response to some adverse financial circumstances that are unlikely to recur, and the ramifications for the competition of losing that team would be worse. It's hard to justify doling out an extra $5m to a club on the financial brink, if you can't see a financial plan that shows a break-even on the horizon. You're just going to dole out another $5m in a few years time, then $7m after that, then $10m a few years after that... and eventually someone in power will get jack of it, pull the pin, and there will be a merger or relocation.

And while the league is able to make $780million for five year TV deals, it's not the place of the AFL to 'get jack of it' - at least, not unless the overwhelming sentiment of the other clubs is that the failing club is no longer capable of competing in the league.


The fact that 10 clubs out of 12 from the old VFL still exist fundamentally unchanged is a historical anomaly that arises from the fact that there was never a nationwide decision to have a national top-level comp. There was a decision by the VFL to start expanding outwards and rebrand itself as the AFL. Fewer than 62.5% of the fans, and 62.5% of the players, of Aussie Rules live in Victoria now. There is no reason for it to have 62.5% of the teams in the top comp. I don't think the Victorian teams that are unable to financially survive as part of the AFL should fold-- I think they should be where they would always have been if there had ever been a considered approach to developing a national comp: playing in a local Victorian comp (whether it's called 'the VFL' or anything else).

Yes there is. Because each of those ten teams has been in the league for more than 80 years, and between them they hold a 62.5% share in the competition. They have an inherent right to be in the competition, if it is financially possible for them to be there. Further, since the 16 AFL clubs are the ones responsible for $780million TV deals, they should have first access to those funds to secure their survival if necessary. The clubs must always be the number one priority of the body they created to serve their interests - the AFL.


And, to the frenzied cries of the 'these 16 teams forever' believers, the AFL should sit down and work out an ideal, sustainable structure of a national competition. I'd like to see Divisions in the style of UK soccer, but only the bean-counters could answer whether this would be feasible with Australia's greater travel distances and lower population.

Completely unnecessary. Why wouldn't you want the 16 teams to each play each other every year? The only change I could countenance would be conferences of eight teams each - every team plays the seven teams in its conference twice, and the other teams once.

[big bear]

Originally posted by Wardy
They have matched PBL - and have won it - no more Eddie - I think I might just have to go and have a celebratory beverage!

Right on brother. No Eddie and hopefully no Friday night footy starting after 11pm. Best news for a while.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by big bear
Right on brother. No Eddie and hopefully no Friday night footy starting after 11pm. Best news for a while. I wouldn't count my chickens before they hatched, remember the devil is in the detail, so we need to take it one step at a time.;)

[j s]

Originally posted by goswannie14
I wouldn't count my chickens before they hatched, remember the devil is in the detail, so we need to take it one step at a time.;) But chickens come before eggs, the devil made Kerry do it and one step now gets rid of nine.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by j s
But chickens come before eggs, Depends whether you walk past the supermarket or butcher shop first;)

[OldE]

Originally posted by Charlie
The AFL is merely the rebranded and expanded VFL - a body that was created by eight founder clubs and joined by eight others over the years (excluding University). The AFL is nothing more or less than the sum of its clubs. The clubs are the league itself. The 16 clubs are effectively equal partners in the AFL - therefore, the AFL administration are akin to the elected directors and salaried officers of a private company, answerable to shareholders (the clubs).

Somewhere in the past 20 years, this relationship has been forgotten and transposed. The 'AFL' not only behaves as an independent entity, but it controls the clubs! If a club wanted to exercise its rights to leave the AFL, it could not take its names, jumper or logo with it, because they're all trademarks of the AFL! So far letting the AFL off it's rightful leash has cost us one club, and gone agonisingly close to costing us Sydney, the Dogs, Hawthorn and Melbourne as well. I wonder how many more it will cost.

Precisely the problem. Looking back, the AFL had absolutely no right to throw Fitzroy out of the competition. It should have found a way of saving Fitzroy - even if the only way to do it was to offer the club's directors to place the club in the AFL's administration (as happened with Sydney).


We talked about club relocations in a sports law class I took a while back. I'm a little hazy on the details (perhaps one of the fine RWO legal minds can fill me in), but IIRC, it is illegal for a team to continue operating for any lengthy period of time at a loss. As a legal entity separate to the AFL, it is the clubs responsibility to either make a profit or break even. Merging or relocating clubs can be a matter of legal necessity.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by Charlie
Looking back, the AFL had absolutely no right to throw Fitzroy out of the competition. It should have found a way of saving Fitzroy - even if the only way to do it was to offer the club's directors to place the club in the AFL's administration (as happened with Sydney). Last time I looked the AFL didn't kick Fitzroy out of the league any more than they kicked South Melbourne or the Brisbane Bears out of the league. We were relocated, and the Bears and Lions were merged. The only club that ceased to exist in its entirety from the VFL/AFL was University.

By merging the two clubs and coming up with the Brisbane Lions the AFL did in fact find a way of saving a club that in the end just wasn't viable. Like us, it has retaind it's history even though it exists in a different entity than it once did. Eventually I think the same thing will have to happen to a number of Melb based clubs. As JS said in another thread, you get more prize money for being a club that is going broke than if you win the GF, doesn't seem to be logical or fair does it?

[Charlie]

Originally posted by eirinn
We talked about club relocations in a sports law class I took a while back. I'm a little hazy on the details (perhaps one of the fine RWO legal minds can fill me in), but IIRC, it is illegal for a team to continue operating for any lengthy period of time at a loss. As a legal entity separate to the AFL, it is the clubs responsibility to either make a profit or break even. Merging or relocating clubs can be a matter of legal necessity.

I have faith in the accounting profession to find a way of placing cash injections from the AFL in the 'revenue' column.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by goswannie14
Last time I looked the AFL didn't kick Fitzroy out of the league any more than they kicked South Melbourne or the Brisbane Bears out of the league. We were relocated, and the Bears and Lions were merged. The only club that ceased to exist in its entirety from the VFL/AFL was University.

They kicked them out in so far as they didn't provide the financial support they were capable of - support that could (with appropriate administration, by the AFL if necessary) have gotten Fitzroy out of trouble.


By merging the two clubs and coming up with the Brisbane Lions the AFL did in fact find a way of saving a club that in the end just wasn't viable. Like us, it has retaind it's history even though it exists in a different entity than it once did. Eventually I think the same thing will have to happen to a number of Melb based clubs. As JS said in another thread, you get more prize money for being a club that is going broke than if you win the GF, doesn't seem to be logical or fair does it?

'Not viable' is a cop-out if the league as a whole is viable, whilst supporting that club. Also, the last time I looked clubs pursue premierships for their inherent value, rather than any cash bonus.

[Xie Shan]

Originally posted by Charlie
I have faith in the accounting profession to find a way of placing cash injections from the AFL in the 'revenue' column.

Um, yeah. They already have Charlie! It's called "non-operating revenue". A common ploy, but not enough to fool the likes of me. ;) Ah, financial statement analysis...one subject I did at uni that actually might come in handy! :)

I'm a little confused as to who owns who, though - is the AFL really owned by the clubs? Assuming the clubs are incorporated - the Swans' official name is "Sydney Swans Limited" from the bottom of the members' emails - then each club would be a separate legal entity according to company law.

[Charlie]

Clubs are still required to vote on certain decisions, and clubs still appoint the Commissioners. 67% is required for a vote to be passed, I believe - although some require unanimous agreement.

[Xie Shan]

Originally posted by Charlie
Clubs are still required to vote on certain decisions, and clubs still appoint the Commissioners. 67% is required for a vote to be passed, I believe - although some require unanimous agreement.

Smells like an agency relationship then if this is correct, where the clubs have basically delegated the running of the league to AFL admin to the point that the AFL controls everything. Can anyone confirm this? If so, then basically the AFL would have a duty to act in good faith and in the clubs' best interests according to agency law.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by sydfan83
Smells like an agency relationship then if this is correct, where the clubs have basically delegated the running of the league to AFL admin to the point that the AFL controls everything. Can anyone confirm this? If so, then basically the AFL would have a duty to act in good faith and in the clubs' best interests according to agency law.

That's what I thought the arrangement was.

Now, can the AFL, under 'agency law' (which I won't pretend to understand) actually shut down one of the clubs which conferred its powers to it?

As an aside, our treatment by the AFL was appalling in the 1980s and 1990s - forced to pay several million dollars between 1986 and 1994 for a VFL/AFL license that was our's in the first place. Worse, in 1993 we were excluded (presumedly for expediency) from the most important league vote in our history, when the clubs voted on whether we would remain in the league.

[Xie Shan]

Originally posted by Charlie
That's what I thought the arrangement was.

Now, can the AFL, under 'agency law' (which I won't pretend to understand) actually shut down one of the clubs which conferred its powers to it?

I don't understand it that well either! I'm just trying to remember my business law lectures... :p

I guess if the club was so hopelessly bankrupt that it would actually be in the best interests of the league (ie. all the other clubs) to shut it down, maybe.

But if that's the arrangement then it would make sense that the clubs would have a responsibility to make a profit (mentioned in a previous post), being bound to each other by the agreement to create the league.

[SimonH]

Originally posted by Charlie
Yes there is. Because each of those ten teams has been in the league for more than 80 years, and between them they hold a 62.5% share in the competition. They have an inherent right to be in the competition, if it is financially possible for them to be there. Further, since the 16 AFL clubs are the ones responsible for $780million TV deals, they should have first access to those funds to secure their survival if necessary. The clubs must always be the number one priority of the body they created to serve their interests - the AFL.


Originally posted by Charlie
They kicked them out in so far as they didn't provide the financial support they were capable of - support that could (with appropriate administration, by the AFL if necessary) have gotten Fitzroy out of trouble.

We really will need another thread, maybe another forum to deal with this, but the two quotes above really show up the contradiction inherent in your position, i.e.
1. Each club is entitled to say, "We are the league. There's no question of what the league should do for us or vice versa, because we are it and it is us. Take us away and it ceases to be the league."
2. The league should financially prop up ailing clubs regardless of troublesome, dire or non-existent long-term prospects, just because they are their clubs.

If there is no 'league' as an independent entity, there is nothing to prop you up. Conceptually, you are trying to keep cool by lying in your own shadow. Practically, you are doing no more than laying the begging bowl in front of the other clubs (particularly the wealthy ones), and their reasons for helping you (or not) are not likely to be fearless and principled.

However, the first proposition is wrong. The AFL is not just a convenient name for the 16 clubs when they're sitting in a room together. It is its own entity. If there was no legally independent organisation, there would have been no one body that could have offered the WA Football Commission entry to the comp in 1986 and demanded a $4 million license fee from it. There would have been no one body that could have made squillions putting the broadcast rights out to tender. Etcetera. Whether the 12 clubs in the VFL made a horrible error in 1985 by creating the Commission is a nice historical argument, but not terribly relevant.

The competition known as the AFL is run by the AFL Commission, comprising eight people. Any or most of the clubs could just walk out-- refuse to nominate persons to be on the Commission, refuse to vote for nominees, refuse to cooperate with the Commission in any way, the works... and the Commission would continue to exist.

The AFL is bound by a Memorandum and Articles of Association in the same way as most other companies, which in keeping with its usual standards, are not available on the web. Those seeking any particular change have to act accordance with those documents. The most immediate and practical service that the AFL provides to the clubs is to organise a competition in which they can compete against other clubs. As the AFL is a separate entity from any club, the AFL's Memorandum and Articles (which govern its operation, no-one else's) would say nothing about 'shutting down' a club, but rather would talk about the circumstances in which the AFL could exclude clubs from the competition that it organises. However, the clubs themselves are generally corporations, and as such have a duty under law to stop trading and place themselves into administration/receivership if they are no longer able to pay their debts as and when they fall due. So when push comes to shove for bankrupt clubs, it would not be a question of the AFL excluding it from the competition, but simply that the club would have to shut its doors.

The fact that nominees as commissioners are put forward by clubs, and voted for by clubs, doesn't mean that the commissioners have a duty to do the bidding of any individual club, or even a cabal of 9 clubs, when voting on the Commission. In all types of organisation, there are plenty of structures where a person is appointed to a position of authority by an individual or the vote of a group-- but having taken up that position of authority, does not represent the group or individual who appointed him or her.

An obvious example is judges, who are appointed by politicians in one way or another, but are expected to be entirely independent of the political process, and in fact would be liable to be sacked if caught doing the bidding of any individual politician or party while performing their duties.

This is how judges decide cases against the Government that appointed it; boards of directors make decisions that outrage the shareholders who appointed them; and Royal Commissioners make damning findings against the politicians who ordered that the inquiry be held. The perceived duties of their office override any perceived or real loyalty to those who gave them that office. Similarly, as an AFL commissioner, if you're given a choice between a decision that helps an individual club but hurts the game as a whole, or vice versa, then your duty should be clear-- even if that individual club voted you onto the Commission.

Whether it would be theoretically possible for the 10 Victorian clubs (or any other group of at least 9 clubs) to form a gang and elect only commissioners who would do their bidding in all matters, regardless of the good of the code or the principles of the organisation (http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=aflinfosheets&spg=display&articleid=240737) is again a matter of speculation; but it's clearly not how things are intended to work.

But leaving aside theoretical nastiness, the policy decision has to be: Do you want every existing team that used to play in the VFL, to continue to play in the expanded and rebranded VFL indefinitely, at any cost; or do you want the best national comp we can have? In the long term, you can't have both.

In my opinion, the first option is just a 'we're here because we're here because we're here' putting of your head in the sand. The history of the game at all levels, in all states, involves change. To pretend that 1928 or 1981 or 1997 was the golden era, and our only job is to keep things as similar as possible to what they were like back then, is just a fantasy. And it's a fantasy that damages the credibility of the AFL as an organisation in the 5 states and 2 territories that aren't Victoria.

[SimonH]

Originally posted by Charlie
Completely unnecessary. Why wouldn't you want the 16 teams to each play each other every year? The only change I could countenance would be conferences of eight teams each - every team plays the seven teams in its conference twice, and the other teams once. Normally I love you, man, but that is the absolute pits. You seem to think that there are only 16 football teams in Australia-- and among them 4 are corporate blowins with less than 2 decades' history. Heard of Norwood, North Adelaide, West Perth, Glenorchy, Glenelg, North Launceston, Zillmere, Balmain, Port Melbourne, St Marys etc etc etc? All teams with long and proud histories. Have a look at this site (http://www.fullpointsfooty.net/current_clubs.htm) and then get back to me.

Between them all, they provide at least 70% of the heart, soul and history of the game in this country (over-generously allowing 30% for VFL clubs). In a 4 division national comp, some of them now would be Division 2 teams, some Division 4.

But playing strength is a very changeable thing, determined by a variety of factors-- clubs go from English Premier League down to Division 4, and then back again. In 1907 Norwood beat Carlton to become the 'Champion of Australia'. Such interstate club matches and championships unfortunately fell into disuse (if they had not, a more logical and truly national competition might have evolved from them), but results in state of origin matches over the decades tell the story-- the best side in the land would usually have been a Victorian one, but (at least up until the end of the 1970s when the trickle of interstate players being poached by Victorian teams started to become a flood) the odd dominant West Australian and South Australian team would have taken home the mantle. There is no reason why these SA and WA clubs, which continue to exist, would be organisationally unable to prepare teams that could compete and win at the top level if they won promotion. Similarly, if North Melbourne finish bottom, they should have to prove that they're the best of the second-tier clubs before they can have another crack at the top flight. At the other end, Balmain are no more likely to start poaching Chris Judd and making a grand final, than Rushden & Diamonds are going to knock Chelsea off the top of the Premier League. They aim to achieve the highest they can within their niche and their limitations, and that's fine.

Whether it would be financial for lower divisions to travel to compete against each other in Australia, is an open question. But footy is a tribal thing, and harnessing the full power of that tribalism, not merely the limited corporate version that is now available to most non-Victorians, could only increase player and fan involvement in the game.

[Eala ?ireann]

hg

[Charlie]

Originally posted by SimonH
We really will need another thread, maybe another forum to deal with this, but the two quotes above really show up the contradiction inherent in your position, i.e.
1. Each club is entitled to say, "We are the league. There's no question of what the league should do for us or vice versa, because we are it and it is us. Take us away and it ceases to be the league."
2. The league should financially prop up ailing clubs regardless of troublesome, dire or non-existent long-term prospects, just because they are their clubs.

What is the contradiction? The league is made up of the clubs - that you can argue this isn't the case astonishes me. Without the clubs, what is the league? Answer - NOTHING. An empty shell of a company that no longer operates.

You have also (wilfully?) misrepresented my argument, which is that while the league is financially viable (as it is now), there is simply no justification to cut adrift decades of history, and more importantly a club's right to continue to be a member of the league it helped to form.

If the league can no longer operate without shedding certain clubs, that is when replacing clubs becomes a necessary evil.


If there is no 'league' as an independent entity, there is nothing to prop you up. Conceptually, you are trying to keep cool by lying in your own shadow. Practically, you are doing no more than laying the begging bowl in front of the other clubs (particularly the wealthy ones), and their reasons for helping you (or not) are not likely to be fearless and principled.

Huh? I only vaguely understand what you're trying to say here. With regards to the begging bowl - the rich clubs should be reminded that each club's contributions to the league far outstrip any financial cost. The TV rights are only worth as much as they are because there are 16 teams, each of them with established supporter bases. Take out the Bulldogs, and you take out a quarter of a million football fans. Some will join other clubs, and more will casually watch the sport. But you will lose something precious that very, very few brands have - emotional identification with clubs that crosses generations. There are people support the Bulldogs whose great-great-grandparents supported the Bulldogs.


However, the first proposition is wrong. The AFL is not just a convenient name for the 16 clubs when they're sitting in a room together. It is its own entity. If there was no legally independent organisation, there would have been no one body that could have offered the WA Football Commission entry to the comp in 1986 and demanded a $4 million license fee from it. There would have been no one body that could have made squillions putting the broadcast rights out to tender. Etcetera. Whether the 12 clubs in the VFL made a horrible error in 1985 by creating the Commission is a nice historical argument, but not terribly relevant.

All of this loses the point - yes, it is it's own entity. So what? It doesn't change the fact that it is no more than a delegated authority charged with running the competition for the joint benefit of the competition. Delegated by the clubs.


The competition known as the AFL is run by the AFL Commission, comprising eight people. Any or most of the clubs could just walk out-- refuse to nominate persons to be on the Commission, refuse to vote for nominees, refuse to cooperate with the Commission in any way, the works... and the Commission would continue to exist.

This is rubbish. The Commission can ONLY function at the behest of the clubs - this is the constitutional reality of the AFL, if not the day-to-day case. If the clubs refuse to nominate someone to be on the Commission, then no-one sits on the Commission. How hard is that to understand?


The AFL is bound by a Memorandum and Articles of Association in the same way as most other companies, which in keeping with its usual standards, are not available on the web. Those seeking any particular change have to act accordance with those documents. The most immediate and practical service that the AFL provides to the clubs is to organise a competition in which they can compete against other clubs. As the AFL is a separate entity from any club, the AFL's Memorandum and Articles (which govern its operation, no-one else's) would say nothing about 'shutting down' a club, but rather would talk about the circumstances in which the AFL could exclude clubs from the competition that it organises. However, the clubs themselves are generally corporations, and as such have a duty under law to stop trading and place themselves into administration/receivership if they are no longer able to pay their debts as and when they fall due. So when push comes to shove for bankrupt clubs, it would not be a question of the AFL excluding it from the competition, but simply that the club would have to shut its doors.

And simply, this is stupid. The AFL has the capacity to support clubs in order to ensure they are all viable in the eyes of the law. This renders any obligations to turn a profit superfluous to the debate... completely irrelevent. Further, I would argue that it is in the best interests of all clubs to ensure that the AFL behaves in this manner. Who would have guessed in 1995 that by 2002 Carlton would be asking fans for donations to keep going? No club is financially secure for all time.


The fact that nominees as commissioners are put forward by clubs, and voted for by clubs, doesn't mean that the commissioners have a duty to do the bidding of any individual club, or even a cabal of 9 clubs, when voting on the Commission. In all types of organisation, there are plenty of structures where a person is appointed to a position of authority by an individual or the vote of a group-- but having taken up that position of authority, does not represent the group or individual who appointed him or her.

An obvious example is judges, who are appointed by politicians in one way or another, but are expected to be entirely independent of the political process, and in fact would be liable to be sacked if caught doing the bidding of any individual politician or party while performing their duties.

Rubbish analogy. Judges are not company directors. If the AFL is a company, then the clubs are its shareholders - does anybody argue against this? A company's directors are beholden to act in the interests of shareholders. I'm no executive, but this isn't earth-shattering stuff.


This is how judges decide cases against the Government that appointed it; boards of directors make decisions that outrage the shareholders who appointed them; and Royal Commissioners make damning findings against the politicians who ordered that the inquiry be held. The perceived duties of their office override any perceived or real loyalty to those who gave them that office. Similarly, as an AFL commissioner, if you're given a choice between a decision that helps an individual club but hurts the game as a whole, or vice versa, then your duty should be clear-- even if that individual club voted you onto the Commission.

What? The Commissioners have usurped control of the game. It was not in their mandate upon the creation of the Commission, and it should never have been placed in their hands.

Their duties are simple - to the 16 clubs that delegate authority over their league first. Anybody else second.


Whether it would be theoretically possible for the 10 Victorian clubs (or any other group of at least 9 clubs) to form a gang and elect only commissioners who would do their bidding in all matters, regardless of the good of the code or the principles of the organisation (http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=aflinfosheets&spg=display&articleid=240737) is again a matter of speculation; but it's clearly not how things are intended to work.

The magic number is two thirds majority in most cases. That is 11 clubs.


But leaving aside theoretical nastiness, the policy decision has to be: Do you want every existing team that used to play in the VFL, to continue to play in the expanded and rebranded VFL indefinitely, at any cost; or do you want the best national comp we can have? In the long term, you can't have both.

Why not?


In my opinion, the first option is just a 'we're here because we're here because we're here' putting of your head in the sand. The history of the game at all levels, in all states, involves change. To pretend that 1928 or 1981 or 1997 was the golden era, and our only job is to keep things as similar as possible to what they were like back then, is just a fantasy. And it's a fantasy that damages the credibility of the AFL as an organisation in the 5 states and 2 territories that aren't Victoria.

Since when did the desire of people in Tasmania to have an AFL team come before the right of Bulldogs fans who have included that club in their families for generations? Sigh - I guess you have to actually live in Victoria to understand what the clubs are here. They are more like tribes than teams. They are a way of life, a part not only of your personality, but your heritage. If you have that sort of r'ship with your customers, you don't throw it away.

[liz]

Originally posted by Charlie


Rubbish analogy. Judges are not company directors. If the AFL is a company, then the clubs are its shareholders - does anybody argue against this? A company's directors are beholden to act in the interests of shareholders. I'm no executive, but this isn't earth-shattering stuff



Not correct.

Company directors are beholden to act in the interests of stakeholders, not shareholders. Shareholders are but one group of stakeholders, albeit a group with the most directly linked needs.

In particular, if a director is nominated or elected by one shareholder or group of shareholders, that director is still not entitled to vote to act in the interests of that shareholder or group of shareholders to the detriment of other shareholders (and other stakeholders). They are obliged to act in the overall best interests of shareholders and stakeholders.

[Wardy]

Originally posted by liz
Not correct.

Company directors are beholden to act in the interests of stakeholders, not shareholders. Shareholders are but one group of stakeholders, albeit a group with the most directly linked needs.

In particular, if a director is nominated or elected by one shareholder or group of shareholders, that director is still not entitled to vote to act in the interests of that shareholder or group of shareholders to the detriment of other shareholders (and other stakeholders). They are obliged to act in the overall best interests of shareholders and stakeholders.

Well said Liz. And Ange & I will go for that celebratory beverage as suggested at the very beginning of this thread! Care to join us Liz?

[Charlie]

Originally posted by liz
Not correct.

Company directors are beholden to act in the interests of stakeholders, not shareholders. Shareholders are but one group of stakeholders, albeit a group with the most directly linked needs.

In particular, if a director is nominated or elected by one shareholder or group of shareholders, that director is still not entitled to vote to act in the interests of that shareholder or group of shareholders to the detriment of other shareholders (and other stakeholders). They are obliged to act in the overall best interests of shareholders and stakeholders.

And other stakeholders in the AFL would be... sponsors? Broadcasters? Regional leagues?

None of their interests strike me as particularly incompatible with preserving the 16 clubs.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by SimonH
Normally I love you, man, but that is the absolute pits. You seem to think that there are only 16 football teams in Australia-- and among them 4 are corporate blowins with less than 2 decades' history. Heard of Norwood, North Adelaide, West Perth, Glenorchy, Glenelg, North Launceston, Zillmere, Balmain, Port Melbourne, St Marys etc etc etc? All teams with long and proud histories. Have a look at this site (http://www.fullpointsfooty.net/current_clubs.htm) and then get back to me.

Please.


Between them all, they provide at least 70% of the heart, soul and history of the game in this country (over-generously allowing 30% for VFL clubs). In a 4 division national comp, some of them now would be Division 2 teams, some Division 4.

They do not have the financial resources to compete in a national comp. You need to sort out your argument, mate - the Bulldogs and Kangaroos don't have a right to be in the competition if they fall a couple of million short of meeting their expenses, but a club like Balmain (which would not be able to scrape together 5% of an AFL club's budget) has a right to be in the national comp?

Have you really thought this through? What happens if Collingwood finishes bottom? One of the biggest money spinners in the sport suddenly isn't in the premier competition.

They might be replaced with, say, Box Hill. That's fine - but what happens to Box Hill when Hawthorn decides it needs to send its reserves elsewhere, now that they're playing Box Hill in round 9? Suddenly the old Mustangs are in a competition that they can't afford to play in, and needing to find antoher 15 to 20 players.

Meanwhile, a team like Collingwood has to waste time playing against the likes of Glenelg, West Perth and Balmain. They'd win every week, of course - but their players are unhappy because they naturally want to be in the main competition. The fans are unhappy because they aren't in the main competition, the games aren't on TV and there really isn't much fun in winning by 200 points each week. Most important, the competition itself doesn't benefit - while Box Hill are getting smashed, Collingwood isn't playing Essendon on Boxing Day or Sydney at Stadium Australia.

Australian Rules isn't English soccer. There isn't that much space for top-flight clubs, and there isn't anything to be gained out of relegating the only 16 clubs that are the only top flight clubs. Just because something works overseas doesn't mean it works here. It's that simple.


But playing strength is a very changeable thing, determined by a variety of factors-- clubs go from English Premier League down to Division 4, and then back again. In 1907 Norwood beat Carlton to become the 'Champion of Australia'. Such interstate club matches and championships unfortunately fell into disuse (if they had not, a more logical and truly national competition might have evolved from them), but results in state of origin matches over the decades tell the story-- the best side in the land would usually have been a Victorian one, but (at least up until the end of the 1970s when the trickle of interstate players being poached by Victorian teams started to become a flood) the odd dominant West Australian and South Australian team would have taken home the mantle. There is no reason why these SA and WA clubs, which continue to exist, would be organisationally unable to prepare teams that could compete and win at the top level if they won promotion. Similarly, if North Melbourne finish bottom, they should have to prove that they're the best of the second-tier clubs before they can have another crack at the top flight. At the other end, Balmain are no more likely to start poaching Chris Judd and making a grand final, than Rushden & Diamonds are going to knock Chelsea off the top of the Premier League. They aim to achieve the highest they can within their niche and their limitations, and that's fine.

- First of all, interstate club matches were happening as late as the 1980s. So that doesn't have anything to do with the failure of the main state leagues to create a 'more logical' national competition. The truth is that Victorian football needed to expand to survive - but the situation in the other states, especially WA, was even worse. They didn't have the money.

See above. You haven't thought this through. You think a state league team could magically rise to AFL level overnight - bulldust! There simply isn't that many star footballers going around. Where will their players come from? Where will their money come from? Where will their AFL-standard facilities come from? Are Port Melbourne going to play West Coast at TEAC Oval if they gain promotion? Come off it.

What about players? If WC finished bottom because of a spate of injuries, we would be faced with a farcical situation in which arguably the best three players in the country (Judd, Cousins and Cox) weren't playing in the best league. Didn't have a chance of winning the real premiership. What happens to the draft? If Norwood and Claremont win promotion, it seems a little unfair that their best juniors are open to be drafted by the rest of competition. So where do other clubs get their players from, let alone Norwood and Claremont?


Whether it would be financial for lower divisions to travel to compete against each other in Australia, is an open question. But footy is a tribal thing, and harnessing the full power of that tribalism, not merely the limited corporate version that is now available to most non-Victorians, could only increase player and fan involvement in the game.

No, it will send clubs broke much quicker than anything else will. Quite simply, the idea is absurd. Unworkable.

[AussieAnge]

Originally posted by Charlie
Please.



They do not have the financial resources to compete in a national comp. You need to sort out your argument, mate - the Bulldogs and Kangaroos don't have a right to be in the competition if they fall a couple of million short of meeting their expenses, but a club like Balmain (which would not be able to scrape together 5% of an AFL club's budget) has a right to be in the national comp?

Have you really thought this through? What happens if Collingwood finishes bottom? One of the biggest money spinners in the sport suddenly isn't in the premier competition.

They might be replaced with, say, Box Hill. That's fine - but what happens to Box Hill when Hawthorn decides it needs to send its reserves elsewhere, now that they're playing Box Hill in round 9? Suddenly the old Mustangs are in a competition that they can't afford to play in, and needing to find antoher 15 to 20 players.

Meanwhile, a team like Collingwood has to waste time playing against the likes of Glenelg, West Perth and Balmain. They'd win every week, of course - but their players are unhappy because they naturally want to be in the main competition. The fans are unhappy because they aren't in the main competition, the games aren't on TV and there really isn't much fun in winning by 200 points each week. Most important, the competition itself doesn't benefit - while Box Hill are getting smashed, Collingwood isn't playing Essendon on Boxing Day or Sydney at Stadium Australia.

Australian Rules isn't English soccer. There isn't that much space for top-flight clubs, and there isn't anything to be gained out of relegating the only 16 clubs that are the only top flight clubs. Just because something works overseas doesn't mean it works here. It's that simple.



- First of all, interstate club matches were happening as late as the 1980s. So that doesn't have anything to do with the failure of the main state leagues to create a 'more logical' national competition. The truth is that Victorian football needed to expand to survive - but the situation in the other states, especially WA, was even worse. They didn't have the money.

See above. You haven't thought this through. You think a state league team could magically rise to AFL level overnight - bulldust! There simply isn't that many star footballers going around. Where will their players come from? Where will their money come from? Where will their AFL-standard facilities come from? Are Port Melbourne going to play West Coast at TEAC Oval if they gain promotion? Come off it.

What about players? If WC finished bottom because of a spate of injuries, we would be faced with a farcical situation in which arguably the best three players in the country (Judd, Cousins and Cox) weren't playing in the best league. Didn't have a chance of winning the real premiership. What happens to the draft? If Norwood and Claremont win promotion, it seems a little unfair that their best juniors are open to be drafted by the rest of competition. So where do other clubs get their players from, let alone Norwood and Claremont?



No, it will send clubs broke much quicker than anything else will. Quite simply, the idea is absurd. Unworkable.

Yawn, please pass the potatoes.

[Zlatorog]

All these arguments about which club should stay in which should go is totally pointless, especially when comparing to other codes. Talking about creating 1st and 2nd divisions doesn't make sense since all players have become professional.
Just look at the FA league for example and tell me how many top paying, reach clubs had actually dropped out of the 1st division alltogether. Probably none. Only those clubs usually drop into the 2nd division who can't afford top class facilites and players, that is why I find FA is so boring. The same clubs in contention for premiership all the time. It's like seeing Bombers in the grand final year after year, or the same clubs finishing in the top eight.
It might happened in AFL in the future as well, if their officials have to become too gready.

Just a thought.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by Zlatorog
The same clubs in contention for premiership all the time. It's like seeing Bombers in the grand final year after year, or the same clubs finishing in the top eight.
It might happened in AFL in the future as well, if their officials have to become too gready.

Just a thought. You've got it the wrong way around...that is what used to happen in the VFL/AFL the same teams in the finals year in year out. With the draft and salary cap that is now less likely to happen

[SimonH]

I won't bother quoting the whole reply back to you, but 3 points need to be made:

1. Your whole argument is predicated on a contradiction even more fundamental than the one that I first identified, that is to say:
a) Victorian clubs must stay forever, no matter what the logistics or the cost, because dollars and sense (sic) can't comprehend the tradition, meaning and emotion that fans, players and administrators attach to the guernsey and history of each club.
b) Interstate clubs can get rooted, because there are a whole bunch of logistical and cost issues that make increased participation on their part impractical. The tradition, meaning and emotion attached to their histories might be nice for them, but we've got bigger concerns here: running a financially viable top-flight competition!
If you re-read your comments as a whole and can't see that that's the position that you're coming from, then I'm afraid you're not being honest with yourself. And it's exactly that kind of attitude that exemplifies why a Victorian-centric comp is neither healthy for the future of the game nationally, nor viewed with enthusiasm by football fans in the rest of Australia.

2. I'm not sure if you actually understand what the UK soccer league system is. Collingwood would not play Balmain, any more than Torquay lines up against ManU. (Let's forget the FA Cup which is a side-comp, although inevitably it features a non-league or Division 4 team that knocks off a Division 1 or 2 team and provides the year's feel-good 'local boys knock off millionaires' story.) All of the 'how on earth would their playing list, facilities, training standards etc get up to speed' arguments are faced by every team that is promoted (some of them go back the next year, some don't). The issues of loss of prestige and cash are similarly faced by relegated sides; the absolute elite-of-the-elite players will ususally transfer away from a relegated side, but most of the playing list doesn't walk. More importantly, Leeds fans don't stop being Leeds fans because they're relegated. It's tribal-- sound familiar? I appreciate that a divisional system would require extensive change to the structure of the game (e.g. clubs in the UK must run internal reserve teams; the draft would need to be reimagined; the salary cap issue would need to be revisited). I didn't raise it as a 'we could introduce Divisions next year, and keep everything else the same' proposal. I raise it as one possible way of running the game nationally-- there are many-- for the purpose of getting people to actually think about the issue, rather than a kneejerk 'everything is perfect now (well, would be perfect if Fitzroy was still in)' refusal to contemplate the simple (but seemingly unimaginable to some people) idea of actually having a truly national Australian rules competition.

3. You haven't addressed the core problem with your argument: are you looking out for an individual club (or group of clubs), or are you looking out for the good of the game? It's naive in the extreme to think that the 2 things always coincide. The 'survival of the 10 Victorian clubs at any cost' policy is self-evidently at the cost of the best possible national competition, because every dollar spent paying the bills of organisations who can't afford to pay their bills within the operating environment of the current structure, is a dollar not spent on developing and implementing the best national comp we can have.

You're kidding yourself if you think that the establishment of the VFL Commission was some kind of lapsarian anomaly: all professional sporting competitions in the world have a strong central administration independent of the teams they organise a competition for. Without that administration, you cannot coordinate the fundamentals of a competition of any complexity, let alone deal with complex and lucrative media rights deals, development of the code, the long-term interests of the game etc etc. In any event, 'the league doesn't exist as an independent entity, the league is us' argument does less to help survival of struggling clubs-- rather than putting your argument for cash to a central coordinating body with established policies and principles, you're putting it to Eddie. For an example of what happens where clubs vote directly on life and death: "On November 7, 2001, Commissioner Bud Selig announced that major league baseball would undergo a contraction of two teams, after a 28?2 vote by the owners. Montreal was one of the dissenting franchises." Source. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Expos) No prizes for guessing where the dissenters stood on the totem pole. (Montreal actually ultimately avoided getting the arse in the very limited sense that their 'franchise' was shipped out and renamed the Washington Nationals in 2005.) Heard the one about 4 wolves and a sheep having a democratic vote on what to eat for lunch?

You cannot change the fact that in 50 years time, these 16 teams based in these locations will not be playing in the top-level national competition. The overwhelming likelihood, and also the fairer thing, is that the distribution of top-flight teams will better represent the distribution of fans and players throughout the country. The most meaningful choice that we have is whether the evolved competition harnesses the tradition and following of existing clubs, or we go down the path of creating corporate 'franchises' out of thin air. Refusing to confront the issue at all because we kid ourselves everything is perfect now, just makes us Luddites.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by SimonH
I won't bother quoting the whole reply back to you, but 3 points need to be made:

1. Your whole argument is predicated on a contradiction even more fundamental than the one that I first identified, that is to say:

No, it isn't. You're imagining one.


a) Victorian clubs must stay forever, no matter what the logistics or the cost, because dollars and sense (sic) can't comprehend the tradition, meaning and emotion that fans, players and administrators attach to the guernsey and history of each club.

Partially correct. As long as the national competition is viable, yes this is the case. The right of each club to remain in the competition is not inviolable, but it must be as close to inviolable as is possible. That means that if the competition can continue to be commercially successful as it is, then it must stay as it is.


b) Interstate clubs can get rooted, because there are a whole bunch of logistical and cost issues that make increased participation on their part impractical. The tradition, meaning and emotion attached to their histories might be nice for them, but we've got bigger concerns here: running a financially viable top-flight competition!

You make the mistake of assuming that I think clubs like Balmain (a local grassroots footy club!) have an equal right to be in the national competition as the clubs that started the national competition! Surely you don't think this is the case?

Can you not see how much of a joke of an argument it is when you on the one hand say that financial viability is the only thing that matters, and yet on the other you deplore the plight of Balmain and Zillmere (a club that less than 15 years ago was forced to go into hiatus) in not having access to the national competition? Just what angle are you trying to come from, Simon?

From what I can tell it is nothing other than 'let's screw the Vics'.

When are you going to address your contradiction? Suburban Sydney clubs that have to advertise for players have an inherent right to be in the league, but professional footy clubs with over 100 years of history within the league don't? It defies any sense of belief.


If you re-read your comments as a whole and can't see that that's the position that you're coming from, then I'm afraid you're not being honest with yourself. And it's exactly that kind of attitude that exemplifies why a Victorian-centric comp is neither healthy for the future of the game nationally, nor viewed with enthusiasm by football fans in the rest of Australia.

You're still labouring under the false impression that the AFL's primary concern should be the health of clubs like Balmain. Yes, that is a concern, but it can never and should never override the interests of the existing 16 clubs.


2. I'm not sure if you actually understand what the UK soccer league system is. Collingwood would not play Balmain, any more than Torquay lines up against ManU. (Let's forget the FA Cup which is a side-comp, although inevitably it features a non-league or Division 4 team that knocks off a Division 1 or 2 team and provides the year's feel-good 'local boys knock off millionaires' story.) All of the 'how on earth would their playing list, facilities, training standards etc get up to speed' arguments are faced by every team that is promoted (some of them go back the next year, some don't).

Oh, you think the plight of promoted teams in the EPL is desirable? You think a league in which three or four teams have the resources to compete for the title, another eight or ten float in perpetual limbo and the rest struggle to keep afloat in the top division is good?


The issues of loss of prestige and cash are similarly faced by relegated sides;

Again, this is a GOOD thing?


the absolute elite-of-the-elite players will ususally transfer away from a relegated side, but most of the playing list doesn't walk.

'The absolute elite will usually transfer away'. Funny. We have a system that prevents that from happening in AFL - it's resulted in a competition where all but one team has played in a preliminary final in the past eight years. What you propose must necessarily be the death-knell of that system. And you know what will happen once that occurs. The same teams will dominate. Every year.


More importantly, Leeds fans don't stop being Leeds fans because they're relegated. It's tribal-- sound familiar? I appreciate that a divisional system would require extensive change to the structure of the game (e.g. clubs in the UK must run internal reserve teams; the draft would need to be reimagined; the salary cap issue would need to be revisited).

Oh. Good to see that you're aware you'd be selling the competition into the hands of LESS clubs, not more.


I didn't raise it as a 'we could introduce Divisions next year, and keep everything else the same' proposal. I raise it as one possible way of running the game nationally-- there are many-- for the purpose of getting people to actually think about the issue, rather than a kneejerk 'everything is perfect now (well, would be perfect if Fitzroy was still in)' refusal to contemplate the simple (but seemingly unimaginable to some people) idea of actually having a truly national Australian rules competition.

It is not simple. It will not work. The sport is not big enough to have that many teams. A SANFL side suddenly finding itself in the AFL will be an embarassment. What you want is a pie-in-the-sky impossibility.


3. You haven't addressed the core problem with your argument: are you looking out for an individual club (or group of clubs), or are you looking out for the good of the game? It's naive in the extreme to think that the 2 things always coincide. The 'survival of the 10 Victorian clubs at any cost' policy is self-evidently at the cost of the best possible national competition, because every dollar spent paying the bills of organisations who can't afford to pay their bills within the operating environment of the current structure, is a dollar not spent on developing and implementing the best national comp we can have.

Like it or not the 16 clubs are responsible for about 95% of all income generated by Australian rules football. They are cash cows - and let's be honest, they are being ruthlessly milked. Destroy them, and you destroy income streams that are NOT easily replaced. Destroy them, and you will lose MORE country footy clubs than you save.

Serving their interests IS in the best interests of the sport. You might not like centralised professionalism of the sport, but it is a reality. Zillmere doesn't have a place in the national competition.


You're kidding yourself if you think that the establishment of the VFL Commission was some kind of lapsarian anomaly: all professional sporting competitions in the world have a strong central administration independent of the teams they organise a competition for. Without that administration, you cannot coordinate the fundamentals of a competition of any complexity, let alone deal with complex and lucrative media rights deals, development of the code, the long-term interests of the game etc etc. In any event, 'the league doesn't exist as an independent entity, the league is us' argument does less to help survival of struggling clubs-- rather than putting your argument for cash to a central coordinating body with established policies and principles, you're putting it to Eddie.

There is no professional sporting competition in the world that has a comparable structure or culture to the AFL. They either have a structure of relegation and promotion (wherein the rights of clubs have traditionally been linked to performance), or the teams are no more than 'franchises' owned by rich men for the purposes of self-enrichment or, more commonly, self-aggrandisement. Nowhere that I can think of do you see the stability that the VFL/AFL has enjoyed over its very long period of existence. Nowhere do you see community-based clubs that have histories of near-constant presence in the league.

The AFL is NOT like any other league. It is unique (as, in many ways, are the rest of the world's professional sporting competitions). Why the obsession with copying?


For an example of what happens where clubs vote directly on life and death: "On November 7, 2001, Commissioner Bud Selig announced that major league baseball would undergo a contraction of two teams, after a 28?2 vote by the owners. Montreal was one of the dissenting franchises."Source. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Expos) No prizes for guessing where the dissenters stood on the totem pole. (Montreal actually ultimately avoided getting the arse in the very limited sense that their 'franchise' was shipped out and renamed the Washington Nationals in 2005.) Heard the one about 4 wolves and a sheep having a democratic vote on what to eat for lunch?

Ha! Thanks for proving my point. See what happens when you put something as irrelevent to sport as profit ahead of the sport's place in the community? Why did baseball - quite possibly the richest sport in the world - need to cut two teams?


You cannot change the fact that in 50 years time, these 16 teams based in these locations will not be playing in the top-level national competition.

This is not a fact.


The overwhelming likelihood,

As you just acknowledged.


and also the fairer thing, is that the distribution of top-flight teams will better represent the distribution of fans and players throughout the country.

Why should people lose their clubs after they have fought tooth and nail (and perhaps only Essendon has never been in danger of dying out) to keep their clubs lose them? What is fair about that?


The most meaningful choice that we have is whether the evolved competition harnesses the tradition and following of existing clubs, or we go down the path of creating corporate 'franchises' out of thin air. Refusing to confront the issue at all because we kid ourselves everything is perfect now, just makes us Luddites.

Meaningful? Garbage!

Sydney in 1983 was a shadow of South Melbourne. A faint flickering candle of what the club had so recently been. It is a great testament to why clubs SHOULDN'T be carelessly thrown on the scrap-heap that the candle wasn't allowed to go out through those dark years. If you ran the competition, Sydney would have died in 1993. Have you stopped to think about that? You would have been wrong, Simon. Noone in 1993 would have taken anyone who suggested we were three years away from a Grand Final - or even 12 from a premiership - seriously. But they were wrong.

Throughout those years people who cared about what South Melbourne was - and what Sydney still is - fought like hell against people who had your vision for the sport. They harnessed the tradition and kept our history alive.

[goswannie14]

You two need to hire a boxing ring and slug it out.:D

[Charlie]

Originally posted by goswannie14
You two need to hire a boxing ring and slug it out.:D

I have a lot of respect for Simon and really enjoy his posts. He's one of the best half dozen or so on this site, in fact.

However in the past year or so I have started to ponder what it would do to me if the Swans ever died... knowing how close we've come, and that there really isn't anything to say that it won't get that close again.

This has made me very much aware that if I were heartbroken by the loss of my club, so too would be Kangaroos and Bulldogs fans. I no longer understand how anyone - let alone a Swans fan - could be so cavalier about wishing such things on someone else.

[Wardy]

Originally posted by Charlie
I have a lot of respect for Simon and really enjoy his posts. He's one of the best half dozen or so on this site, in fact.

However in the past year or so I have started to ponder what it would do to me if the Swans ever died... knowing how close we've come, and that there really isn't anything to say that it won't get that close again.

This has made me very much aware that if I were heartbroken by the loss of my club, so too would be Kangaroos and Bulldogs fans. I no longer understand how anyone - let alone a Swans fan - could be so cavalier about wishing such things on someone else.

Charlie - none of us want the Swans to dissapear - but nothing in this life is guaranteed. No one can predict what will happen in the future.

Just chill out a bit - you are after all on Uni Holidays, enjoy them while they last.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by Wardy
Charlie - none of us want the Swans to dissapear - but nothing in this life is guaranteed. No one can predict what will happen in the future.


That's exactly my point, Wardy.

It's all very well to talk about giving teams to the Gold Coast and Western Sydney and Tasmania, and cutting out existing clubs - when you think your team is safe. I wonder how many people would support reducing the number of teams if their club was the one in the firing line.

I can't in good conscience wish upon the fans of Victorian clubs anything that I would fight tooth and nail to prevent happening to Sydney.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by Charlie
That's exactly my point, Wardy.

It's all very well to talk about giving teams to the Gold Coast and Western Sydney and Tasmania, and cutting out existing clubs - when you think your team is safe. I wonder how many people would support reducing the number of teams if their club was the one in the firing line.

I can't in good conscience wish upon the fans of Victorian clubs anything that I would fight tooth and nail to prevent happening to Sydney. My club was in the firing line Charlie, didn't you read in the papers that Sydney used to be South Melbourne?:p So many of us have been through it and survived, why can't others. My Fitzroy Lions, now Brisbane Lions, friends would agree.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by goswannie14
My club was in the firing line Charlie, didn't you read in the papers that Sydney used to be South Melbourne?:p So many of us have been through it and survived, why can't others. My Fitzroy Lions, now Brisbane Lions, friends would agree.

I don't know a Fitzroy or South fan who prefer what they have now to what they had then.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by Charlie
I don't know a Fitzroy or South fan who prefer what they have now to what they had then. What...premierships???:D

I know what you are saying, but don't entirely agree/disagree with you.:)

[Charlie]

Originally posted by goswannie14
What...premierships???:D

I know what you are saying, but don't entirely agree/disagree with you.:)

You could possibly make that argument for Brisbane, but not Sydney. Even then, there was only one player that Brisbane acquired via the merger who played in the premierships (Chris Johnson).

You cannot possibly predict now what would have happened with South Melbourne if the resources had been there to keep them afloat. Yes, you'll note that I said 'if' - I'm not arguing that in 1981 the VFL had the ability to support financially crippled clubs. So the move to Sydney was the right thing to do. However, the modern AFL does have the ability to prevent another club having to move. It had the ability to keep Fitzroy alive, but it usurped its authority to destroy a foundation club.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by Charlie
You could possibly make that argument for Brisbane, but not Sydney. Even then, there was only one player that Brisbane acquired via the merger who played in the premierships (Chris Johnson).

Jarrod Molloy was acquired via the merger and played in the 2002 Grand Final. :D ;)

[THERBS]

But if South hadn't come to Sydney then I wouldn't be watching AFL or going to games or celebrating a flag. And that makes me sad just thinking about it. Some people have lost out and I feel for them. I would hate to see Sydney die as it almost did over 10 years ago. That would be the end of AFL for me. I couldn't really see myself following another club. So I imagine most other fans of all the other clubs would feel the same. Two divisions wouldn't work. We just don't have the numbers or cash for it to succeed.
AFL at the moment outstrips its major club-level competitor, the NRL, in all ways - administration, junior development, media, finals structure, day Grand Finals, broadcast rights and truly national exposure. Its in strong shape, supports the existing clubs and there's no reason to fear for its direction.

[SimonH]

Originally posted by Charlie
No, it isn't. You're imagining one.

[oh, my freaking god... I've created a monster...]

They harnessed the tradition and kept our history alive. Others may have the time to keep this going forever, but I don't. Four closing comments by way of summary:

1. I was right in saying that this needs its own forum, let alone being tacked on a Channel 7/10 thread.

2. You wrongly believe that I have said/believe that Australian rules should be run on economic rationalist lines, and as a consequence would have put Sydney down like a hapless water buffalo in 1993. That's not the case. The reason why I would have supported the retention of Sydney, to put it in a phrase, was that it was in the long-term interests of the game that a top-level-comp team continue to exist in NSW. Nor is it the case that I ever proposed a league in which North Melbourne were booted out to be replaced with Balmain. The policy position I come from is that all teams around Australia (that anyone has any interest in) should continue to exist and participate at a level that is appropriate to their resources and following (while still being encouraged to develop same to a higher level). I also believe that the fact that something called 'the AFL' was created by unilateral declaration of one state's football commission in the late 1980s, did not of itself make a national competition. Nor did the farming out of a few new club licenses from which a corporate team was invented from thin air (while some people are passionate Weagles, Clones etc fans and I respect that). Making a national competition is a work in progress. The difference between us is that I believe that it is desirable (and in the very long term, inevitable) that we have a truly national competition, and the only interesting debate is on the form it should take; you (without being disrespectful) adopt one (or a combination) of the following positions:
? I don't care about that
? Even if it might be theoretically desirable, the loss of any existing AFL-Victorian team from the top-level comp would be too high a price to pay
? What we have now is near enough.

3. You (predictably, and I don't say that as a put-down-- I'd probably do the same if arguing your corner) say 'you think my position is contradictory because I'm rootin' for the retention of Victorian teams and don't care about interstate ones-- it's actually you who's contradictory because you want to destroy Victorian clubs while boosting interstate ones beyond their credentials'. Implicit in this whole 'it's you who's biased; no, it's you who's biased' argument is that there is a point of equilibrium where all interested clubs and state football organisations in Australia have a fair involvement in the national game and a fair stake in its future. Not many people would argue that that's a desirable outcome. The difference between us is that you think we're already either at that point, or close to it (or would be if the AFL Commission would cede more power back to the 16 clubs). I think we're far from it, and the top-level Australian Rules comp is heavily Victorian-centric; and that Victorian-centricity negatively affects involvement in, and promotion and development of, Aussie Rules as a national game.

4. As is obvious from the comments above, I don't agree with all aspects of the way in which the English domestic soccer competition is run. For example, private ownership and lack of any salary/financial restrictions tend to hurt the game in the long term. I hope it was reasonably clear from my earlier comments that aspects of the UK system would need to be re-imagined for Australian conditions. The point about the promotion/relegation model (and I hope no-one would dispute there are many models for running the game: it's not just 'adopt UK soccer in toto, or keep what we have forever'), is that 'should this club go out of business, or should this club survive by the skin of its teeth?' is in most cases a false dichotomy. If there are people interested in running it, and young people interested in playing for it, of course the club should survive. The real issue is the level at which the club should operate. See, for example, the Newtown Jets. All Jet-lovers would be disappointed that they aren't playing in the highest comp in the land, and would fondly remember the days when they were one of Australia's leading league teams. But changing demographics (and no doubt other factors) meant that by the early 80s, the club was no longer financially viable at the top level. (In a familiar story, if it had survived in the then-NSWRL it would have been by relocating to the growing market of Campbelltown, but the attempt fell through.) All Jet-lovers would also agree that it is great that the club continues to exist (http://www.newtownjets.com/05result.htm), "keeping its history alive" as you say, and continues to field a number of teams, the highest of them in NSW's premier state comp. A system which perpetuates and encourages a mammoth drop-off between the top-level and second-tier of the competition is bad for the game, because it discourages grass roots involvement, and promotes the false dichotomy that I've referred to above-- 'if we're not playing in the AFL, we might as well go out of business'.

I would be delighted to continue the discussion with Charlie (or anyone else) by PM, but as these arguments will continue to be held forever, I don't see the virtue in inflicting them on everyone else indefinitely.

As this'll be my last post on the topic, I apologise in advance that you will inevitably feel that I've misrepresented your arguments. I have no doubt about the passion or genuineness of your beliefs. As Ali G would say, Respeck.

[Sanecow]

I think I hear wedding bells.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Sanecow
I think I hear wedding bells.
Always the bridesmoo...

[Charlie]

You think you're getting the last word? Ha! :D


Originally posted by SimonH


2. You wrongly believe that I have said/believe that Australian rules should be run on economic rationalist lines, and as a consequence would have put Sydney down like a hapless water buffalo in 1993. That's not the case. The reason why I would have supported the retention of Sydney, to put it in a phrase, was that it was in the long-term interests of the game that a top-level-comp team continue to exist in NSW.

Yet you think it is in the best interests of the game that the sport's heartland (and you cannot ever deny that Victoria is the centre of the Australian rules world) be alienated from the same top level? For that is the effect of what you endorse.

Every time you deem a Victorian club expendable - in light of comments I will quote later I think of this as punishing them for having the gall to launch the national competition - you alienate their fans. Hundreds of thousands of people in every single case. Yes, some will continue to follow them (moreso if they are relocated than merged) but as many or more will drop the sport altogether. It is not a good strategy to pillage your home city in order to take another one - regardless of the spoils on offer.


Nor is it the case that I ever proposed a league in which North Melbourne were booted out to be replaced with Balmain. The policy position I come from is that all teams around Australia (that anyone has any interest in) should continue to exist and participate at a level that is appropriate to their resources and following (while still being encouraged to develop same to a higher level).

You endorsed a multi-division structure in which clubs like Balmain deserve to compete in an expanded national competition. You further argued that this is not an inherent right of the clubs that created the national competition. Either this is an appalling conflict, or you are placing the interests of Balmain ahead of the Kangaroos.


I also believe that the fact that something called 'the AFL' was created by unilateral declaration of one state's football commission in the late 1980s, did not of itself make a national competition. Nor did the farming out of a few new club licenses from which a corporate team was invented from thin air (while some people are passionate Weagles, Clones etc fans and I respect that). Making a national competition is a work in progress. The difference between us is that I believe that it is desirable (and in the very long term, inevitable) that we have a truly national competition, and the only interesting debate is on the form it should take; you (without being disrespectful) adopt one (or a combination) of the following positions:
? I don't care about that
? Even if it might be theoretically desirable, the loss of any existing AFL-Victorian team from the top-level comp would be too high a price to pay
? What we have now is near enough.

This is yet another absurdity. Western Australian football was so financially moribund in the 1980s that the government stepped in to administer it! They were in no position to act as equal partners in a very, very risky idea.

South Australia's situation was different, yet had the same result. That state has always had a fiercely independent football culture - it was only when Port Adelaide went within an inch of joining the AFL in 1990 that the Adelaide Crows were belatedly formed by the other eight SANFL clubs. If WA didn't have the resources, SA didn't have the disposition.

So who was to start this national competition, if not the VFL? Not Tasmania! Certainly no economic powerhouse, the VFL was nonetheless the strongest league both financially and in quality. Of the football cities, ONLY Melbourne has the market for more than a handful of clubs - two is ideal, three is the maximum that either Perth or Adelaide can serve. It had even made the first foray interstate in 1981. The VFL was the natural vehicle for expansion.

Yet you seem to think that the clubs that MADE the national competition possible should now be punished for it. Oh, I know there is no punitive intent, but this is the effect, as you must surely acknowledge. That the Kangaroos - whose leadership under Allen Aylett, Ron Joseph and Ron Barassi had dragged football into the professional era in the 1970 - should now face extinction for bequething to the sport financial security is a particularly odious viewpoint.


3. You (predictably, and I don't say that as a put-down-- I'd probably do the same if arguing your corner) say 'you think my position is contradictory because I'm rootin' for the retention of Victorian teams and don't care about interstate ones-- it's actually you who's contradictory because you want to destroy Victorian clubs while boosting interstate ones beyond their credentials'. Implicit in this whole 'it's you who's biased; no, it's you who's biased' argument is that there is a point of equilibrium where all interested clubs and state football organisations in Australia have a fair involvement in the national game and a fair stake in its future. Not many people would argue that that's a desirable outcome. The difference between us is that you think we're already either at that point, or close to it (or would be if the AFL Commission would cede more power back to the 16 clubs). I think we're far from it, and the top-level Australian Rules comp is heavily Victorian-centric; and that Victorian-centricity negatively affects involvement in, and promotion and development of, Aussie Rules as a national game.

The sport is Victoria-centric, Simon. That's not going to change in the forseeable future. No matter HOW strong a patron you are for football in NSW, Sydney is no more than the golden shore on the horizon. Victoria is the sport's home. Victoria is the sport's Fort Knox - a nest egg secure against all but careless squandering.

You seem to think that the clubs are mere brands for the promotion of the competition - nonsense! Each of the clubs is a separate entity, and the competition itself is the vehicle for the clubs, not the other way around! This is the case in ALL competitions except one - the biggest and most important.

I agree wholeheartedly that there must be an equilibrium where all parties with a stake in footy get their fair share. But the 16 AFL clubs - who bring in the money - must have their status confirmed, not withdrawn! You do not appear to understand that as great a loss as it is to the sport when Zillmere is forced into hiatus, it pales into insignificance compared to the death (or even wounding) of one of its cash cows.

Yes, it's a lovely vision where West Perth plays Belconnen in the 2nd Division Grand Final, with the winner earning their place in the top flight. Merit based competition to its core. But it's so unrealistic it doesn't deserve a second thought.


4. As is obvious from the comments above, I don't agree with all aspects of the way in which the English domestic soccer competition is run. For example, private ownership and lack of any salary/financial restrictions tend to hurt the game in the long term. I hope it was reasonably clear from my earlier comments that aspects of the UK system would need to be re-imagined for Australian conditions.

You said:


The point aboutI appreciate that a divisional system would require extensive change to the structure of the game (e.g. clubs in the UK must run internal reserve teams; the draft would need to be reimagined; the salary cap issue would need to be revisited).

That's as clear a recognition as I could imagine that you do not foresee the survival of our sport's (necessary) equilisation measures with a UK-style promotion and relegation system. It is ONLY the draft and salary cap that allows as many as 16 reasonably competitive top-flight teams to function in Australian rules football, which is a small sport and small market in world terms. England has several times as many soccer fans and players as we have Aussie rules fans and players, and yet without equalisation they have four teams that share the title between them.

In Australia, a free-market (I despise that oxymoron 'economic rationalist') system will see Collingwood, Essendon, West Coast and Adelaide dominant. Sydney and Carlton *might* manage to catch up with time. Is that what you really want?


the promotion/relegation model (and I hope no-one would dispute there are many models for running the game: it's not just 'adopt UK soccer in toto, or keep what we have forever'), is that 'should this club go out of business, or should this club survive by the skin of its teeth?' is in most cases a false dichotomy. If there are people interested in running it, and young people interested in playing for it, of course the club should survive. The real issue is the level at which the club should operate. See, for example, the Newtown Jets. All Jet-lovers would be disappointed that they aren't playing in the highest comp in the land, and would fondly remember the days when they were one of Australia's leading league teams. But changing demographics (and no doubt other factors) meant that by the early 80s, the club was no longer financially viable at the top level. (In a familiar story, if it had survived in the then-NSWRL it would have been by relocating to the growing market of Campbelltown, but the attempt fell through.) All Jet-lovers would also agree that it is great that the club continues to exist (http://www.newtownjets.com/05result.htm), "keeping its history alive" as you say, and continues to field a number of teams, the highest of them in NSW's premier state comp.

How many people turn up to Newtown games these days? My guess would be about as many as turn up to watch the Fitzroy Reds going around in the VAFA. They play at Brunswick Street, they wear the old jumper and they are operated by the Fitzroy Football Club. But except for a few die-hards - and good for them - they are ignored by the vast majority of old Roys fans. They've either accepted the on-paper 'merger', switched to another club or abandoned the sport altogether. That is not good for the game.


A system which perpetuates and encourages a mammoth drop-off between the top-level and second-tier of the competition is bad for the game, because it discourages grass roots involvement, and promotes the false dichotomy that I've referred to above-- 'if we're not playing in the AFL, we might as well go out of business'.

That is the way most fans feel. Ask Victorian fans on Bigfooty. They'll tell you.

Like it or not the course of professionalism can no more be turned back than it could have been avoided in the first place. Why punish the clubs that ushered the sport into the modern era?


I would be delighted to continue the discussion with Charlie (or anyone else) by PM, but as these arguments will continue to be held forever, I don't see the virtue in inflicting them on everyone else indefinitely.

Don't be silly. I see no problem with continuing the topic on the public boards. It is certainly preferable to doing so via PM.


As this'll be my last post on the topic, I apologise in advance that you will inevitably feel that I've misrepresented your arguments. I have no doubt about the passion or genuineness of your beliefs. As Ali G would say, Respeck.

I don't see a good reason for this to be your last post.

[Dudley]

Some major movement on this issue the past 24-48 hours

According to 3AW this morning the 7&10 bid is now "on the verge of collapse"

as Foxtel is steadfastly refusing to deal with 7&10

If 7&10 can't do a deal with Foxtel they will then be forced to show all 8 AFL games per week on FTA throughout the entire country (on Friday nights primetime everwhere and competing against each other on Saturdays and Sundays) - ie. logically won't happen and financailly crippling disaster

Foxtel continues to hold out, the original PBL bid will be announced the winner on May 6 after the 120 day AFL negotiation period with 7&10 expires

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by Dudley
Some major movement on this issue the past 24-48 hours

According to 3AW this morning the 7&10 bid is now "on the verge of collapse"

as Foxtel is steadfastly refusing to deal with 7&10

If 7&10 can't do a deal with Foxtel they will then be forced to show all 8 AFL games per week on FTA throughout the entire country (on Friday nights primetime everwhere and competing against each other on Saturdays and Sundays) - ie. logically won't happen and financailly crippling disaster

Foxtel continues to hold out, the original PBL bid will be announced the winner on May 6 after the 120 day AFL negotiation period with 7&10 expires Has anyone heard anything that can prove or refute this???

[tantrum]

The Age says "the standoff is over".

http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2006/02/14/1139890736291.html

[giant]

No doubt just the latest instalment of "war by media" on part of both parties. This has a long way to go yet I suspect.

[Tuesday]

And she is doing a great job. :)

[floppinab]

Originally posted by Charlie


Every time you deem a Victorian club expendable - in light of comments I will quote later I think of this as punishing them for having the gall to launch the national competition - you alienate their fans. Hundreds of thousands of people in every single case. Yes, some will continue to follow them (moreso if they are relocated than merged) but as many or more will drop the sport altogether. It is not a good strategy to pillage your home city in order to take another one - regardless of the spoils on offer.

You further argued that this is not an inherent right of the clubs that created the national competition. Either this is an appalling conflict, or you are placing the interests of Balmain ahead of the Kangaroos.



This is yet another absurdity. Western Australian football was so financially moribund in the 1980s that the government stepped in to administer it! They were in no position to act as equal partners in a very, very risky idea.

South Australia's situation was different, yet had the same result. That state has always had a fiercely independent football culture - it was only when Port Adelaide went within an inch of joining the AFL in 1990 that the Adelaide Crows were belatedly formed by the other eight SANFL clubs. If WA didn't have the resources, SA didn't have the disposition.

So who was to start this national competition, if not the VFL? Not Tasmania! Certainly no economic powerhouse, the VFL was nonetheless the strongest league both financially and in quality. Of the football cities, ONLY Melbourne has the market for more than a handful of clubs - two is ideal, three is the maximum that either Perth or Adelaide can serve. It had even made the first foray interstate in 1981. The VFL was the natural vehicle for expansion.

Yet you seem to think that the clubs that MADE the national competition possible should now be punished for it. Oh, I know there is no punitive intent, but this is the effect, as you must surely acknowledge. That the Kangaroos - whose leadership under Allen Aylett, Ron Joseph and Ron Barassi had dragged football into the professional era in the 1970 - should now face extinction for bequething to the sport financial security is a particularly odious viewpoint.



Yes those wonderful, professional Victorian clubs were the natural vehicle for expansion were they.
In the '70s and further back there was a reasonably representative body called the NFL who administrated football around the country, tried to standarise rules, organise interstate matches, Champions of Aust. matches and the like. They even had delegates from the non-trad. Aussie Rules states. On several occasions during the late '70s and early eighties several proposals for a national league were brought to the NFL, mostly by the SANFL and were consistantly voted down by the VFL. Of course the VFL had it's own expansionist agenda that involved not only raping the playing talent of the western states as had been ongoing for some time, but to suck some of cash out of those states as well, initally as
"licence fees" for new entry clubs but eventually from broadcast rights as well. Just a one of the tactics it used was to force a reduction of transfer fees through the NFL by bullying non-traditional states to vote with the VFL. This in conjunction with attempts to match sky-rocketing offers to players in order to keep them in Perth were key factors in resulting of the financial bind the WAFL found itself in. The VFL wasn't that far behind financially either the main difference being their scale allowing them to continue to trade out the difficulties they and their clubs regularly found themselves in.
SO, instead of having a reasonably fair and equitable national competition we now have an expanded VFL and supporters thereof demanding a right for Victorian clubs to remain, regardless of the fact that their actions locked out a number of clubs in Perth and Adelaide, some having far greater traditions than those in the VFL, from particpating in a national league, thereby locking them out of revenue streams available at that level and a chance to ever compete at that level. The height of hypocracy.


Originally posted by Charlie



Like it or not the course of professionalism can no more be turned back than it could have been avoided in the first place. Why punish the clubs that ushered the sport into the modern era?


Because they had the opportunity to do it in a reasonably equitable fashion but got greedy and had to do it their way at the considerable expense of the WAFL and SANFL. They've made their professional beds, now they have to lie in them.