Looks like it
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 4 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Expansion 10 Victorian clubs here to stay: AFL
- Thread starter SweetLeftFoot
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Looks like it
Tex_21
Norm Smith Medallist
Damn! I was really hoping to rag on fishy there. Oh well. In relevant news-its a good sign the AFL seems committed to the 10 Vic clubs.
I doubt it will be the last thread fishmonger opens and they all tend to aim in the same direction.
As for the OP, I think once North turned down the Gold Coast option the AFL commission committed to 18 teams. So the 10 Victorian clubs were by implication "here to stay". The next TV rights deal will be negotiated on that basis and the CBF will be used to balance things up.
If it got really tight for 2 Vic clubs then the option would be a Woodville-West Torrens style merger or relocation to Tasmania.
Indeed the 10 Victorian clubs prop up the value of the national television rights. The question is whether 4 could do the same job as well as, if not better, than 10.
TitanicRider
Debutant
4 couldn't do the same job. When clubs fold, people lose interest in the sport.
How many ex-Roy's supporters watch a game every week? Not that many
How many University Supporters watch a game every week? Most of those supporters are dead to the game now.. no interest at all
How many ex-Roy's supporters watch a game every week? Not that many
How many University Supporters watch a game every week? Most of those supporters are dead to the game now.. no interest at all
Tex_21
Norm Smith Medallist
Funny that ay.
ahhh sorry mate, but what he said was victorian interest has been the main part of the value, not interest in north. interest in north and hence value to the rights is and will most likely always be the lowest of all clubs. quite simply if we had to lose a club, from an AFL revenue point of view you would hope that it would be north.
of course, there is no reason whatsoever for us to lose, cull or merge any clubs, and im just annoyed that they didnt take this direction years ago and instead have been trying to push you guys out.
so it is very, very good news that the AFL will be working to reduce the breakevens for you guys at your home grounds so you can post decent profits year in year out without any sort of ASD cash.
yep, introducing new clubs and supporting (not squeezing) poor vic clubs is what should have been done 5 years ago, i reckon. the GC side should have played 2 seasons and the WS side one by now.
We are talking about television here, not whether people go to games. If you had Collingwood, Richmond, Essendon, and Carlton on TV every weekend, would the overall national ratings be higher than a 10-team-blend that includes the Westerns and the Kangaroos.
I guess it would.
- Banned
- #34
You're talking about ratings and the current setup.
If all games were available on FTA then the overall ratings would depend on the number of games . This is why Pay TV exists to fill the void of people who don't want to accept the FTA offering .
It's a reality, and one I'm comfortable with. All 10 Victorian clubs are viable, and none of them are in any immediate danger of going under.
The AFL offered the Kangaroos a massive carrot to relocate to the Gold Coast last year; but when they knocked it back to remain as North Melbourne the AFL knew that the 10 current Victorian clubs were no chance of going anywhere. It took 10 years for Fitzroy to go into receivership; and all the current Victorian clubs are in far healthier states than Fitzroy was at the time.
Gold Coast and West Sydney coming in as new clubs reflects this - it's expanding the game into the markets the AFL is targetting without coming at the expense of the existing clubs.
It looks like we'll have 10 Victorian clubs and 2 from each of the other mainland states as a long-term structure. And it's one I'm perfectly comfortable with.
The AFL offered the Kangaroos a massive carrot to relocate to the Gold Coast last year; but when they knocked it back to remain as North Melbourne the AFL knew that the 10 current Victorian clubs were no chance of going anywhere. It took 10 years for Fitzroy to go into receivership; and all the current Victorian clubs are in far healthier states than Fitzroy was at the time.
Gold Coast and West Sydney coming in as new clubs reflects this - it's expanding the game into the markets the AFL is targetting without coming at the expense of the existing clubs.
It looks like we'll have 10 Victorian clubs and 2 from each of the other mainland states as a long-term structure. And it's one I'm perfectly comfortable with.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #36
You don't think 19,000 crowd Sydney who played in two finals should take any responsibility for that?
You guys, after 25 years, are still a struggling expansion team.
Demetriou rightly recognises that the heart and sould of the game is its Victorian base.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #37
And that's why its going to be changed.
The ASD will be removed too (except of course for Sydney, which will be bailed out again and again)
Ideally, yet having fewer clubs split across more borders would be ideal, but in terms of influencing the fabric of the competition, no.
Why 4, why not just have Melbourne and Geelong?
Look at the GF Parade today as an example, support for clubs is blood line and deeply passionate, much like European football, in order to get the existing market to switch to 4 standardised teams, you'd have to destroy the existing make up of clubs and start again
North, South, East and West.
Good luck convincing a dye in wool North Melbourne supporter to switch alligences too Essendon
just be happy with what you've got, l'm bloody happy that l know my mob won't be pushed out anywhere
No, they will just continue to slowly wither.
Mind you every chance they will endeavour to once again commit suicide as a club.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #40
Indeed. If North had gone to the GC, me and my family would have been lost to footy. That's people who year in year out buy memberships, watch games, talk the game up etc etc, all in the HOPE of snaring less people who'd do that in 20 years time.
AFL giving mixed messages.
On the one hand, it is hell-bent on expanding the game, making it a truly national competition, and growing its appeal to international viewers.
On the other hand, it comes out with a statement saying it supports 10 Victorian teams, ie. retaining a system derived from suburban, paddock football.
It can't have both!
On the one hand, it is hell-bent on expanding the game, making it a truly national competition, and growing its appeal to international viewers.
On the other hand, it comes out with a statement saying it supports 10 Victorian teams, ie. retaining a system derived from suburban, paddock football.
It can't have both!
That's the beauty of this expansion plan - our game can grow its presence in the Gold Coast and West Sydney while retaining the tradition that SweetLeftFoot and others like him/her hold so dear.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #43
Exactly. That's why I fully support it. There's more than enough to go around.
Recent events on our financial markets should demonstrate the flaws of the 'growth at all costs, no subsidies' bullshit model that some propose.
The sneaky French, with a far more rounded economic model like the one Demetriou is now proposing, just bought the Brit nuke industry.
I appreciate you have a special culture in Melbourne. I'm down here now and everybody seems to have some kind of inside knowledge on something involving the AFL or some kind of close connection. Less teams would dilute that and perhaps it would be lost all together.
I would guess the WAFL and SANFL used to be the same and they lost that when they entered teams in the AFL.
Ultimately, expansion is about maximising the value of television rights and if 10 teams in Melbourne lower the value national television rights then consideration needs to be given to cutting them.
- Banned
- #45
A very logical statement .
If ? That's the most ludricous and waste of space "if" I've ever heard .
have you ever bothered to look at the ratings breakdown.
Highlights how AD's two predecessors screwed up the 'core business' of putting on footy games in victoria.
It will take a long time to put this right
It will take a long time to put this right
Yes, I know Melbourne ratings are higher than everywhere else, but I am considering the opportunity cost. Would ratings in Sydney be higher if every the televised games from Melbourne never included the Kangaroos or Western?
Would a national image be stronger if people in Sydney could see more of the Western Australian teams and get to know them better instead of always seeing a Melbournian team?
- Banned
- #48
Sure if you want to fiddle with the arrangement of games shown, but that has absolutely no connection with what you were saying regards the number of victorian teams.
I was always talking about what type of games would maximise a television audience, which is why I was saying whether four clubs (Essendon, Collingwood, Carlton, Richmond) could do a better job than the 10 combined. I would guess that if the four clubs were always on TV, television ratings outside of Victoria would be higher than if Western or the Kangaroos were involved.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #50
I watch as much of footy as possible now.
If you got rid of my team, and especially if it was only the 4 clubs you mentioned and flog interstate sides, I'd watch none.
