Round 7: the other games. Time to get out the black texta?

[mcs]

What if both Hawthorn and Norths are relocated to Tasmania?
8 Victorian and an equal number of non Victorian teams

In a perfect world, I'd love to see the comp at 14 teams. Right amount in my opinion for better spread of talent, ability to have a proper 26 round home and away season (could expand the list a bit to allow for the extra games). Finding 4 clubs to get rid of now will never happen however, unless the game hits a terrible patch and clubs literally go broke. I think it would be a better number to maximise quality of the game, and get a better balance as a national competition. They missed the chance to move to that when they didn't force someone to relocate for Gold Coast (they did try hard with lol@Norf granted), and GWS.

[KTigers]

Do you think the AFL, a sport that predominately exists within 3 states of 1 single country, can afford to adopt the same cut throat approach to a sport with millions of supporters all over the world?

I agree that we don't have the coverage of talent to sustain a 20 team comp right now. Expansion is driven by TV rights, more games each week means more revenue. The league is always going to push the limits of sustainability but need to be careful not to get too greedy and spoil the competition by spreading the talent too thin.

Agree. You can't really compare the AFL to the major sporting leagues all around the world. The economy the AFL exists in is tiny compared
to them. Many of us in Sydney don't like the Melbourne focus of the AFL but if more Sydney people got on board and developed an interest
in footy then some of that focus would follow the money that would come from more people in Sydney being interested in the code.
I can't see the number of teams in Melbourne being cut for a long time. Look at the last 40 years. One Melbourne team was cut and one
was moved. That's it.

[Mountain Man]

What if both Hawthorn and Norths are relocated to Tasmania?
8 Victorian and an equal number of non Victorian teams

[Aprilbr]

But as I said in another thread, the interstate teams are propping up the Victorian sides via preferential fixturing given to them.
By no measure should Victoria have more than half the sides in the comp, it's only this propping up, the legacy of the VFL, and a 'soft' administration which keeps it as it is.

Its a pretty controversial and arguably, incorrect view to say the interstate teams are propping up the rest. If one looks at the financials of clubs broken down then WCE and Adelaide are in the top 6-8 teams, Freo, Port and Swans are middling and Brisbane, GWS and GC are at or near the bottom. These figures include AFL distributions which tend to be greater for the lower revenue clubs. If these were stripped out then the lower clubs would look even worse. There has been a lot written on this in places like "The Footy Industry" on Bigfooty.

Favourable fixtures help clubs at the top in terms of support like Essendon and Collingwood but don't help middling Victorian clubs much. The Swans have had several Thursday/Friday fixtures this season plus an Anzac Day clash. We have not been too badly done by in that department although today's blockbuster should have been on Friday or Saturday night.

[barry]

But as I said in another thread, the interstate teams are propping up the Victorian sides via preferential fixturing given to them.
By no measure should Victoria have more than half the sides in the comp, it's only this propping up, the legacy of the VFL, and a 'soft' administration which keeps it as it is.

[Bloods05]

Three only thing soft is the AFL. In any other serious League. Eg EPL, NFL, Fitzroy world have been gone decades ago.

This talk of Tassie and 20 teams is more of these same. Tassie is not viable. Look at the boring nature of this round. We don't need more teams. 18 max, probably 16 is better.

[Barry] doth protest too much, methinks. We know you're a softie underneath all that.

[Roadrunner]

It is obvious that as 10 out of 18 teams in our competition, the AFL is the VFL renamed. Hence the focus on Melbourne based teams, which is understandable when you think about it. With 2 teams in each State, including the 2 “foreign” States, I think we have a pretty good balance and I don’t see the need for a 19th team, which would unbalance the competition.

Give some credit to the AFL as they try to even up the competition with salary caps and drafts, so that every team has a chance for success. It’s far from perfect but just look at the EPL- at this stage only 6-7 teams out of 20 have reasonable chances and billionaire owners determine a team’ s fate. At least our struggling teams can climb up the ladder if they are well managed and patient for 2-3 years. Brisbane is a case in point- they were pretty awful a few years ago: hope they will be awful today!

[Faunac8]

Three only thing soft is the AFL. In any other serious League. Eg EPL, NFL, Fitzroy world have been gone decades ago.

This talk of Tassie and 20 teams is more of these same. Tassie is not viable. Look at the boring nature of this round. We don't need more teams. 18 max, probably 16 is better.

I tend to agree that we don't need more teams and the existing 18 is probably an ideal number.
Someone mentioned that Fitzroy should have been relocated to Brisbane like the Swans to Sydney and in hindsight that would have been a much better solution than creating the Bears, although it wouldn’t have made a great difference to the level of support they received from the VFL who looked at the new licences as an income source to prop up the existing Victorian clubs.

The Eagles came in at the same time but being a football savvy state with a strong existing comp they were always going to be successful unlike the Bears.
They then renamed themselves the AFL in an attempt to prove how they had embraced the rest of the country and had nothing but noble intentions to grow and develop the game nationally.
However because it was still essentially the VFL in everything but name they were so beholden to the Melbourne clubs and supporters and didn’t want to face the inevitable backlash that another relocation would cause so they began to focus on mergers .
An option that would alienate two lots of supporters rather just one with a relocation.

The attempted merger with the Dogs came close but they rattled enough tins at Whitten Oval to avoid that. Peter Gordon and his contacts saved us from the Fitzroy Bulldogs .
The one that I really would have enjoyed was the proposed Dawks , sorry Melbourne Hawks which almost started a civil war in Melbourne at the time.
There were a few others floated at the time but they muddled through and lucked out with increased revenue from TV rights and the licence fees from Adelaide Fremantle and Port which helped subsidise the poorly performing teams.

They missed the opportunity to fix the problem when the Suns and that other mob came in and probably should have sent North and possibly the Saints interstate.
It seemed to work out alright for South Melbourne so there was a precedent that they could have referenced and refined.
I can only assume they were more interested in the potential increased revenue which they could then use to repeat the cycle and prop up the clubs who were then and now struggling financially.

In the NFL NBA MLB etc in the US because of the market size teams often simply move cities for better deals financially usually including better and bigger stadiums and state tax breaks .
Unfortunately with our population relocation options are much more limited but if it is deemed there are to be teams in new locations then I think that moving existing teams should be the first option explored.

[stevoswan]

Exactly. Take these guys out of the team and where would they and the world be. There would be smashed cheeseboards all over the
streets of Melbourne, every ski resort would be booked out for years to come and Tesla sales would be through the roof threatening
the very existence of the fossil fuel industry.

Sounds fantastic!

[Goal Sneak]

Three only thing soft is the AFL. In any other serious League. Eg EPL, NFL, Fitzroy world have been gone decades ago.

This talk of Tassie and 20 teams is more of these same. Tassie is not viable. Look at the boring nature of this round. We don't need more teams. 18 max, probably 16 is better.

Do you think the AFL, a sport that predominately exists within 3 states of 1 single country, can afford to adopt the same cut throat approach to a sport with millions of supporters all over the world?

I agree that we don't have the coverage of talent to sustain a 20 team comp right now. Expansion is driven by TV rights, more games each week means more revenue. The league is always going to push the limits of sustainability but need to be careful not to get too greedy and spoil the competition by spreading the talent too thin.

[barry]

Three only thing soft is the AFL. In any other serious League. Eg EPL, NFL, Fitzroy world have been gone decades ago.

This talk of Tassie and 20 teams is more of these same. Tassie is not viable. Look at the boring nature of this round. We don't need more teams. 18 max, probably 16 is better.

[Bloods05]

I have a slightly harsher view of what happened to Fitzroy. They were a VFL side who couldn't cut it in a national League (AFL), and so by a convoluted process, dropped back to the VAFA, which is where they belong.

It got a little heated because their fans thought they had a God given right to play in the highest league, which no one does, and the AFL and Brisbane saw an opportunity to improve the fortunes of a struggling outpost club in player, branding and supporter basis.

What a sentimental old softie you are.

[barry]

The difference: South Melbourne relocated to Sydney, whereas Fitzroy merged with the Bears. The Fitzroy identity was shattered, some of it went to Brisbane, and there's also an amateur club competing in the VAFA that is called Fitzroy and plays home games at the Brunswick St oval.

Had Fitzroy relocated to Brisbane in 1987 instead of a new club being formed, more of the old Fitzroy supporters would have embraced the relocated club.

I have a slightly harsher view of what happened to Fitzroy. They were a VFL side who couldn't cut it in a national League (AFL), and so by a convoluted process, dropped back to the VAFA, which is where they belong.

It got a little heated because their fans thought they had a God given right to play in the highest league, which no one does, and the AFL and Brisbane saw an opportunity to improve the fortunes of a struggling outpost club in player, branding and supporter basis.

[KTigers]

They were indeed guilty of pulling the reins for a few years and the drafts between 2013 and 2015 in particular set them up to be where they are now.
Petracca Brayshaw Oliver Salem and Weideman were all first round picks.

Exactly. Take these guys out of the team and where would they and the world be. There would be smashed cheeseboards all over the
streets of Melbourne, every ski resort would be booked out for years to come and Tesla sales would be through the roof threatening
the very existence of the fossil fuel industry.

[Thunder Shaker]

We lost 25 in a row in that period around 1993. The worst team since then was Fitzroy who in their last season of 1996 only won a single game for the season. I don't think the WCE are anywhere near as bad as either of those two sides.

It was sad to watch the death throws of a failing club with a long and proud history. I live next to Fitzroy and some of the pubs there eg Napier still have loads of Fitzroy memorabilia on the walls - they treat the move to Brisbane as the death of their Club. This contrasts with us South supporters who largely embrace the Sydney move.

The difference: South Melbourne relocated to Sydney, whereas Fitzroy merged with the Bears. The Fitzroy identity was shattered, some of it went to Brisbane, and there's also an amateur club competing in the VAFA that is called Fitzroy and plays home games at the Brunswick St oval.

Had Fitzroy relocated to Brisbane in 1987 instead of a new club being formed, more of the old Fitzroy supporters would have embraced the relocated club.