Expansion 10 Victorian clubs here to stay: AFL

[sturtman]

If you guys think you can go it alone and fund a league where you take the game to embrace the Cairns Crocodiles, the Newcastle Coal Depots and the Heard Island Orcas, you guys go for it.

I'm sure WIN and Prime will be willing to bid literally dozens of thousands of dollars for the rights.

It might even be as successful as the South Australian NationLOL Football League.

Yes, 131 years successful. Examine the VFL's record and your kness will start to quake.

"Cairns Crocodiles, the Newcastle Coal Depots and the Heard Island Orcas, you guys go for it." Are these heartland teams or do we have to fight RL for hearts and minds? Can't understand how "suring up the heartland first," qualifies for this moronic response. Or are they next on the all incompassing AFL recruiting horizon. It's time to buy a gun if that's the case.

Yes, and the "NationLOL" part of the SAnFL is coming into jepodary thanks to the unilateral self-appointed custodians of the Australian game. But wait a minute, that doesn't spell......V.I.C.T.O.R.I.A.

 

[krudmonk]

Perhaps SA and WA should have a separate, parallel "conference." Perth and Adelaide will soon have as many clubs as Sydney. That doesn't seem right.

 

[sturtman]

http://www.fullpointsfooty.net/

Visit this link to get a perspective of where Australian rules has been from its beginning to today. You will quickly see that the top WAFL and SANFL teams were no push over. Indeed Port Adelaide, Norwood and North Adelaide have all been national champions. Sturt has also been in at least four finals at a national level. That's why 10 remaining VFL sides in a national league is both laugable and obsurd.

 

[Hawkk]

The Australian Football Championship was a joke and heavily slanted in favour of the SA clubs - given most of the championships were hosted in Adelaide and were 'in season' for the SANFL

The reason why there are 11 VFL clubs in the AFL is because the AFL is just an expanded VFL with a name change. Fact is, the VFL was the largest competitoin, with the most power and support and won the 'war' over the SANFL and WAFL. Granted, the VFL was struggling financially in the 1980's, but the WAFL and SANFL were in much worse states hence the reason why they jumped into bed with the VFL on 'their' terms

Given the powerful VFL clubs were poaching the majority of champion players in South Australia and Western Australia its pretty reasonable to assume that in a legitamete national competition the same Victorian powerhouse clubs would have dominated that competition as well

If you don't like the status quo blame the administrators at both the WAFL and SANFL for jumping into the sheets with the 'dark side'

 

[sturtman]

12 - 2 = 10 if my maths serves me correctly. The poaching of the largest drawing SANFL club is what stung the SANFL into action. The dismantelling of the player retention scheme was the carrot that got the Crows in ahead of PA. The powerhouse clubs are dreaming if they think they can dominate the Crows or the WCE and so are you. And yes you're right, that is the perception of the competition, that it is just an expanded VFL, serving the need of the remaining Victorian teams, using national resources, and claiming national status, which is why the rest of Australia is wanting some change. Unfortunately the muted change has a new maths equation 10 - 4 = 6

The hosting of interstate matches in Adelaide was not a "good will" gesture from the VFL, but rather reducing the distance of travel by Perth teams. But then this is the Melbourne centric view of the world one comes to expect when dealing with Melbourne.

 

[Papa G]

The reason why there are 11 VFL clubs in the AFL is because the AFL is just an expanded VFL with a name change. Fact is, the VFL was the largest competitoin, with the most power and support and won the 'war' over the SANFL and WAFL. Granted, the VFL was struggling financially in the 1980's, but the WAFL and SANFL were in much worse states hence the reason why they jumped into bed with the VFL on 'their' terms

Given the powerful VFL clubs were poaching the majority of champion players in South Australia and Western Australia its pretty reasonable to assume that in a legitamete national competition the same Victorian powerhouse clubs would have dominated that competition as well

If you don't like the status quo blame the administrators at both the WAFL and SANFL for jumping into the sheets with the 'dark side'

Yes, yes we know all this, but the simple fact is, by all reasonable measures, their is an imbalance of Victorian teams in the competition and it is a direct legacy of expanding from the VFL. I undersatnd that Victoria is the most important market, but as a "national" competition, by almost every definable measure Victoria is clearly over represented. The AFL know this but have not had the balls to properly do anything about it. They are now putting the cart before the horse by entering 2 new teams into the comp without first eliminating 2 existing ones. It's like George Bush invading Iraq without finishing off Afganistan with the sum effect being much worse.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

Yes, yes we know all this, but the simple fact is, by all reasonable measures, their is an imbalance of Victorian teams in the competition and it is a direct legacy of expanding from the VFL. I undersatnd that Victoria is the most important market, but as a "national" competition, by almost every definable measure Victoria is clearly over represented. The AFL know this but have not had the balls to properly do anything about it. They are now putting the cart before the horse by entering 2 new teams into the comp without first eliminating 2 existing ones. It's like George Bush invading Iraq without finishing off Afganistan with the sum effect being much worse.

But it isn't gunna be a national competition ever, since its not the national game.

Rugby league is always going to be entrenched in the biggest state and city and in Qld.

Ausie Rules is a southern states sport with its heartland in Melbourne, so naturally Melbourne will ahve the most clubs.

 

[rotto]

victoria makes up about 50% of kids being drafted, and therfore should by rights have 50% of the teams. with gold coast, and west sydney caming in those stats would make it 10/18, instead of 10/16. their is no point in having a third team in wa or sa.

i dont mind having 10 teams from victoria, but afl shouldnt providing welfare to clubs that add only a small % to tv rights and future growth.

providing welfare to the new teams is a good business practice but doing that for the likes of melbourne, western bulldogs, and north mebourne doesnt make business sense. yes, those teams get screwed by the mcg and docklands but so do all of the other vic clubs.

if you say that its for traditional reasons, then why shouldnt tasmania have a team?

 

[Fire]

victoria makes up about 50% of kids being drafted, and therfore should by rights have 50% of the teams. with gold coast, and west sydney caming in those stats would make it 10/18, instead of 10/16. their is no point in having a third team in wa or sa.

i dont mind having 10 teams from victoria, but afl shouldnt providing welfare to clubs that add only a small % to tv rights and future growth.

providing welfare to the new teams is a good business practice but doing that for the likes of melbourne, western bulldogs, and north mebourne doesnt make business sense. yes, those teams get screwed by the mcg and docklands but so do all of the other vic clubs.

if you say that its for traditional reasons, then why shouldnt tasmania have a team?

You don't understand the issue of the stadium deal. Don't comment as it displays your ignorance.

I shouldn’t bother, but I will explain it to you. Because the AFL has a contract with the MCG and Docklands to play a minimum number of games at each, the two stadiums bid against each other for teams like Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton, Richmond etc, because they attract the bigger crowd and fill their stadiums up. When they get to the likes of Melbourne, the dogs and North, they don't have to offer anything because they are already guaranteed their games. It creates an artificial market for those three clubs and they get well below their market value because of it. Many claim its technically illegal for the AFL to do this as it is a restraint of trade.

To claim that all Victorian clubs are screwed is stupid and ignorant.

 

[rotto]

so, your argument is that collingwood get better deals as they get bigger crowds. maybe, their is too many teams in melbourne. dockers have been total crap for a long time but its 2 team town.

your team have been successful for years and still dont get the crowds. so how can the afl support a club with little community support and no avenue to increase your supporter base.

demons and western bulldogs are investing in the growth areas and what is your club doing? just complaining about your tv coverage, bad press, and the stadium deals. even richmond are attempting to go into the craigieburn area.

you complain about west sydney or gold coast getting concessions, but at least they can grow and increase the size of the total pie.