20th AFL Team

[BigChippa52]

In 20 years money will print itself. Meanwhile East Coast and Canberra in particular will continue to self destruct

no it won't canberra will do well the gws deal has proven that, its time to give the captial city its own team should have happened a long time ago, instead of the most isolated place in aus full of alcoholic drugos on welfare (mods sorry if i steped the line there it is true though)

 

[Canberra Pear]

In 20 years money will print itself. Meanwhile East Coast and Canberra in particular will continue to self destruct

What are you talking about? Canberra is growing incredibly quickly. Its case only gets stronger and stronger.

Whereas climate change will make the northern cities a riskier prospect as time goes on, and probably limit population growth.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

Does the mooted North Melbourne deal to play 2 additional games in WA, increase the chances of WA3 as team 20? Or does it decrease their chances, with the AFL content with having the 2 existing WA teams and supplementing by having Victorian teams selling a couple of additional “home” games to WA?

North Melbourne, AFL, WA government set to bring games to Bunbury's Hands Oval

Under a deal currently being negotiated, West Coast or Fremantle will play North Melbourne in Bunbury — the first home and away season games to be played outside of Perth.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Canberra Pear]

Does the mooted North Melbourne deal to play 2 additional games in WA, increase the chances of WA3 as team 20? Or does it decrease their chances, with the AFL content with having the 2 existing WA teams and supplementing by having Victorian teams selling a couple of additional “home” games to WA?

North Melbourne, AFL, WA government set to bring games to Bunbury's Hands Oval

Under a deal currently being negotiated, West Coast or Fremantle will play North Melbourne in Bunbury — the first home and away season games to be played outside of Perth.

www.abc.net.au

Could be testing the waters, but it also negates a lot of the need for a new team.

Reduces travel for WA teams; increases content; but doesn't dilute the West Coast v Freo rivalry. This move has the benefits of a third team, without having to set up a third team.

 

[Coolangatta]

North Perth Kangaroos anyone?

 

[Cubs2Lions]

North Perth Kangaroos anyone?

Know it's supposed to be a joke but isn't Bunbury in South-West Perth though?

Don't want to bag North Melbourne too hard but they really need to make a decision on what they stand for as a footy club.

Are they a club in the AFL that represents and grows the game in the Northern suburbs and areas of Victoria (as they should be) full-time or are they just selling matches left, right and centre all around the Australia just to survive in the competition?

Worry for the Kangaroos because them (and St. Kilda) struggle to bring in the big crowds and member support and wouldn't be surprised if both teams are gone from the AFL competition in 50 years time to accommodate cities with more long-term potential like Canberra because the AFL can only have so many teams in a competition before they can't add anymore.

 

[RedV3x]

Don't want to bag North Melbourne too hard but they really need to make a decision on what they stand for as a footy club.

Are they a club in the AFL that represents and grows the game in the Northern suburbs and areas of Victoria (as they should be) full-time or are they just selling matches left, right and centre all around the Australia just to survive in the competition?

That is the question.
IMO N.M. should get in early as possible if they choose to move.
Maybe we are being too sensitive to N.M. members
and should be asking Fitzroy and South Melbourne supporters what they think of their club's outcomes.
as to future directions.

 

[Bjo187]

I've got a bloke at my work that's a north supporter that thinks north shouldn't be in the competition lol. I asked him how he can possibly say that, he said he cares more about the game overall than his own club and thinks they're too small to compete, plus there are too many teams in Victoria.

I do actually feel bad for their fans always being the butt of these jokes, but stubbornness on a relocation has really put them in this position.

Personally I'd prefer to be a swans or lions fan that only gets to see their club live in Victoria 5 or 6x a year, but have big supporter bases and are winning flags and playing in grand finals all the time. In contrast to having to sell games interstate, have no academy zone, always struggling for money, no real growth in fans potential, inability to attract players and constantly down the bottom. A Canberra relocation is just such an appealing option, if not a w.a one, but Canberra isn't even that far away for crying out loud and will get it's own team anyway, which their government will pour millions into annually if a current club doesn't move there.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I've got a bloke at my work that's a north supporter that thinks north shouldn't be in the competition lol. I asked him how he can possibly say that, he said he cares more about the game overall than his own club and thinks they're too small to compete, plus there are too many teams in Victoria.

I do actually feel bad for their fans always being the butt of these jokes, but stubbornness on a relocation has really put them in this position.

Personally I'd prefer to be a swans or lions fan that only gets to see their club live in Victoria 5 or 6x a year, but have big supporter bases and are winning flags and playing in grand finals all the time. In contrast to having to sell games interstate, have no academy zone, always struggling for money, no real growth in fans potential, inability to attract players and constantly down the bottom. A Canberra relocation is just such an appealing option, if not a w.a one, but Canberra isn't even that far away for crying out loud and will get it's own team anyway, which their government will pour millions into annually if a current club doesn't move there.

Honestly a lot of your points would be more valid if North hadn't grown their revenue and financial base from 2010 when a relocation was generally more considered. The difference that their revenue base is as of a % of all other clubs is far less now than it was 15 years ago, so they're doing what's required of them to "survive", and their lack of success hasn't meant that they're not growing their membership base, for lack of a better analysis.

 

[Bjo187]

Honestly a lot of your points would be more valid if North hadn't grown their revenue and financial base from 2010 when a relocation was generally more considered. The difference that their revenue base is as of a % of all other clubs is far less now than it was 15 years ago, so they're doing what's required of them to "survive", and their lack of success hasn't meant that they're not growing their membership base, for lack of a better analysis.

Yes but this is via donations initially and then government funding to play all around Australia for the past 2 decades. Yet despite those millions each year, they are still top few in the AFL distributions table.

It's kind of a model of just doing what you can to survive and scraping the barrel, while putting your football side of things in a harder place.

Instead of surviving, they should want to prosper. The Roy Morgan survey just came out for this year and had the swans and lions as the 2 most supported clubs in the country now. Fitzroy and South Melbourne were arguably the two smallest clubs before their relocations/mergers and were wallowing down the bottom like the roos are doing now. They relocated at a time when every game wasn't on tv either, making it much harder than it would be now for a relocated supporter base.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Yes but this is via donations initially and then government funding to play all around Australia for the past 2 decades.

It's kind of a model of just doing what you can to survive and scraping the barrel, while putting your football side of things in a harder place.

I mean sure that sort of model is generally acceptable to maintain history and heritage and for their existing fans, and is not a significant drag on the league.

Yet despite those millions each year, they are still top few in the AFL distributions table.

Not notably so at the very least in the context of fixturing bias against them (lack of marquee fixtures and disproportionate abiliy to play 2 games a year against the big Melbourne clubs so they can play each other).

Instead of surviving, they should want to prosper.

Sure, but that's an argument for North fans, who have to make the decision about whether they'd like to survive as North in North rather than give up some of their identity that cannot be avoided with a relocation or merger. Their fans voted down the relocation to Gold Coast, and it was clear that they could have been a "prosperous" club with direct AFL cash injections had they made the move. They rejected it then, even when they were a poorer club and the financial benefits more direct, greater and obvious. They'd naturally reject it now on that same basis.

 

[Bjo187]

I mean sure that sort of model is generally acceptable to maintain history and heritage and for their existing fans, and is not a significant drag on the league.


Not notably so at the very least in the context of fixturing bias against them (lack of marquee fixtures and disproportionate abiliy to play 2 games a year against the big Melbourne clubs so they can play each other).

Sure, but that's an argument for North fans, who have to make the decision about whether they'd like to survive as North in North rather than give up some of their identity that cannot be avoided with a relocation or merger. Their fans voted down the relocation to Gold Coast, and it was clear that they could have been a "prosperous" club with direct AFL cash injections had they made the move. They rejected it then, even when they were a poorer club and the financial benefits more direct, greater and obvious. They'd naturally reject it now on that same basis.

If you look into the history of the gold coast move, they were 100 percent going to go, it was a stuff up and arrogance from Demetriou which was the reason for it being voted down in the end.

Anyhow, it's shouldn't be a choice for the members, the afl should offer them a good deal along with the ACT government (their minister is a footy fan) and if they don't move the other clubs can vote for it to happen. It's the best thing for the competition. Don't worry your bulldogs won't be next cab off the rank, you can't not have a club representing the growing western suburbs region of Melbourne.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

If you look into the history of the gold coast move, they were 100 percent going to go, it was a stuff up and arrogance from Demetriou which was the reason for it being voted down in the end.

Anyhow, it's shouldn't be a choice for the members, the afl should offer them a good deal along with the ACT government (their minister is a footy fan) and if they don't move the other clubs can vote for it to happen. It's the best thing for the competition. Don't worry your bulldogs won't be next cab off the rank, you can't not have a club representing the growing western suburbs region of Melbourne.

Still, the fact that GC didn't have a guaranteed stadium deal in place just proves the point - that back then the financial certainty and therefore benefit had to be to a certain amount to justify such a move.

North could still have made the move with either a stadium deal or even more money from the AFL in lieu of a stadium deal, for instance.

The fact that North still rejected it then (thus showing that why they were poor they were not so poor that they could still be in a position to reject any deal at all) suggests that now they're not quite as poor, they'd clearly reject any moves of a roughly similar or even greater financial benefit to the club.

 

[RedV3x]

Not notably so at the very least in the context of fixturing bias against them (lack of marquee fixtures and disproportionate abiliy to play 2 games a year against the big Melbourne clubs so they can play each other).

Yes. it's a vicious circle and it doesn't look like changing soon.
It doesn't look like changing soon because the AFL is a business after all.

 

[Bjo187]

Still, the fact that GC didn't have a guaranteed stadium deal in place just proves the point - that back then the financial certainty and therefore benefit had to be to a certain amount to justify such a move.

North could still have made the move with either a stadium deal or even more money from the AFL in lieu of a stadium deal, for instance.

The fact that North still rejected it then (thus showing that why they were poor they were not so poor that they could still be in a position to reject any deal at all) suggests that now they're not quite as poor, they'd clearly reject any moves of a roughly similar or even greater financial benefit to the club.

Yeah it was the lack of a guaranteed stadium and Demetriou pulling the figure of 100 million outta his backside with no financials behind it that stopped them from going. They were keen, smelt a rat, so pulled the pin late. The AFL were said to have been gobsmacked at the time, they thought it was over the line. Just the other day i heard from someone that was with Gillon Mclachlan when the news came through and he basically spat out his coffee lol.

I agree their members will vote it down, that's why the AFL have to force it via the other clubs. It's the best thing for the game, which is the AFL's job after all.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Yes. it's a vicious circle and it doesn't look like changing soon.
It doesn't look like changing soon because the AFL is a business after all.

Yeah but you can argue that the existing compensation in distributions (presumably to equate the fact that North Melbourne get fewer home games against other big Melbourne clubs, than an even 11 games divided by 17 average would suggest) need to be even greater to prevent the fact that North are effectively required to sell off a sporting home ground advantage to make up for that.

It's only a business because people are interested in giving it revenue on the foundations of fair sporting competition - a salary cap and draft exist after all, and there is at least some nominal intention to give more difficult fixturing for who plays who twice on last year's ladder position.

You risk damaging that foundation once things like home ground advantages can be purchased by some clubs. What's stopping the same logic preventing any consideration of who plays who twice at all? Why not let there be four Western Derbies and Showdowns a year? Six? Why not just lock in the Big 4 clubs to play each other twice very year (I know they do most years but not literally ever year) as it's a business after all? I don't see how that's principally any different than allowing North to trade off their sporting advantage for more money. And if the AFL ever did that, I would stop supporting the Dogs, because there'd be no point, because any success that the Dogs would have would feel less genuine as the competition becomes less and less about rising to the top on sporting merit among equal and fair sporting opportunity. We're not there yet, but we're trending in that direction with the North move.

Yeah it was the lack of a guaranteed stadium and Demetriou pulling the figure of 100 million outta his backside with no financials behind it that stopped them from going. They were keen, smelt a rat, so pulled the pin late. The AFL were said to have been gobsmacked at the time, they thought it was over the line. Just the other day i heard from someone that was with Gillon Mclachlan when the news came through and he basically spat out his coffee lol.

It's probably for the better as it's allowed for a relatively stable 18 clubs for a period of time, North fans still contribute an overall net positive to the code. It is interesting though that it's not really discussed as a failure by Demetriou. He should have made more of an effort to get it over the line to, you know, actually be good at your job.

I agree their members will vote it down, that's why the AFL have to force it via the other clubs. It's the best thing for the game, which is the AFL's job after all.

Don't take this as for granted. I'm a Dogs member, I would not want my club to vote to force North out of Melbourne if it was not something that North fans would also want, provided they're not dragging the rest of the league down financially to an extreme extent (and they really aren't, they get some additional revenue but to significant amounts that distinguish it from other clubs or is illogically high when compared to overall AFL revenue). I doubt you'd get 2/3s of the clubs wanting this too.

 

[The_Wookie]

I agree their members will vote it down, that's why the AFL have to force it via the other clubs. It's the best thing for the game, which is the AFL's job after all.

The AFL and the other clubs cant force a club to relocate against the will of its membership. There are measures the league can take regarding withdrawing variable funding and fixturing. In certain limited circumstances they have power to remove licenses, as long as the club itself is a member owned entity beholden to its membership. (Fitzroy unfortunately was in Adminstration when its "merger" went through).

I dont see clubs - especially Victorian clubs supporting this either. If the league and clubs could do this to North, why couldnt they then do it to the Bulldogs, Demons or the Saints?

 

[Bjo187]

The AFL and the other clubs cant force a club to relocate against the will of its membership. There are measures the league can take regarding withdrawing variable funding and fixturing. In certain limited circumstances they have power to remove licenses, as long as the club itself is a member owned entity beholden to its membership. (Fitzroy unfortunately was in Adminstration when its "merger" went through).

I dont see clubs - especially Victorian clubs supporting this either. If the league and clubs could do this to North, why couldnt they then do it to the Bulldogs, Demons or the Saints?

My understanding is they can't if it just goes to a member vote at the said club, like the north/gold coast situation, however all the other clubs can vote for a team to be effectively folded or relocated and it supersedes that.

I think the afl would be able to sell it as the best thing for North and the best thing for the competition (which in my opinion it would be), you could even say they retain 3 Melbourne home games.

Regardless, they always get all clubs on board prior to going to a vote anyway. The majority of clubs were against Tasmanian entry initially and in the end, like all club votes, all 18 backed the afl.

I do agree that clubs like the dogs and st kilda might become nervous, however the afl could easily work around that by making guarantees to make those clubs more comfortable. Remember a lot of the club's are beholden to the afl for their existence, so often go along with stuff they don't necessarily agree with.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

The AFL and the other clubs cant force a club to relocate against the will of its membership. There are measures the league can take regarding withdrawing variable funding and fixturing. In certain limited circumstances they have power to remove licenses, as long as the club itself is a member owned entity beholden to its membership. (Fitzroy unfortunately was in Adminstration when its "merger" went through).

I dont see clubs - especially Victorian clubs supporting this either. If the league and clubs could do this to North, why couldnt they then do it to the Bulldogs, Demons or the Saints?

Yep, and whatever the views are on variable funding, it is unquestionable that under a relocation, merger or folding, there will be fans permanently lost to the code, as was the case with Fitzroy (as many as a third of their fans gets bandied around, not fans of other teams, not fans of Brisbane, not fans of a neutral Friday night game, just became disheartened and stopped watching footy). That's even assuming that fans of other clubs also don't stop watching it too because they don't like how another club was treated.

The idea that the AFL spends millions to grow its fan base as it currently does, but then would actively look to lose fans by killing off a club save some money, is a bit silly. It's not as if the AFL are losing out on tens of millions per year because an 18th franchise happens to be the the 9th in Melbourne as opposed to the 3rd in Perth or the 1st in Canberra or whatever, even if we assume that that new club can get average home attendances (and therefore independent revenue) right off the bat the same as North, which is no guarantee.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

My understanding is they can't if it just goes to a member vote at the said club, like the north/gold coast situation, however all the other clubs can vote for a team to be effectively folded or relocated and it supersedes that.

According to the AFL constitution, there's basically three areas in which the clubs have the say, as opposed to the commission or exectuive:

Any decision by the AFL to admit a club can be overturned by a two-thirds majority.

A relocation or merger requires consent of that club.

Suspending or terminaring a club requires ratification by a majority of other clubs.

Keep in mind that the AFL runs five clubs so there's not true independence at a board level for all 18 clubs. That being said, all 5 of these clubs are not intended to be AFL run in perpetuity, either at a certain amount of time and/or when they hit minimum membership and financial independence numbers. Additionally if the existing clubs didn't like the lack of true independence of the new clubs from the AFL diluting their independence and voting power from the AFL, they didn't have to vote their constition into existence in the first place.

The AFL would probably face legal challenges even if a decision was ratified to remove them from the league, and they were able to do so with Fitzroy as they were under administration (their death has a lot longer history). Not sure if the legal challenges would be valid or would be successful, but the very fact that the legal challenges would presumably take place anyway would dissuade the AFL (and the clubs ratifying it) from terminating a club, even if that club was flat broke (and North aren't).

Keep in mind that a Dogs member (Irene Chatfield) was able to get an injunction from the VFL forcing a merger by the Dogs in 1989, at least to allow a period of eventually successful fundraising over a few weeks to avoid the merger. That was pre 1993 Crawford review that did change the governance structure of the AFL though.

 

[RedV3x]

The idea that the AFL spends millions to grow its fan base as it currently does, but then would actively look to lose fans by killing off a club save some money, is a bit silly.

Who is "killing off a club" ?
N.M. seem intent on selling off a club.
Struggling clubs probably lose more members through continued poor performance than through relocation.

One things for sure - long into the future they'll be talking about Brisbane Lions and the Sydney Swans.
Not sure if N,M, will be there.

 

[Mr north man]

The AFL and the other clubs cant force a club to relocate against the will of its membership. There are measures the league can take regarding withdrawing variable funding and fixturing. In certain limited circumstances they have power to remove licenses, as long as the club itself is a member owned entity beholden to its membership. (Fitzroy unfortunately was in Adminstration when its "merger" went through).

I dont see clubs - especially Victorian clubs supporting this either. If the league and clubs could do this to North, why couldnt they then do it to the Bulldogs, Demons or the Saints?

Let’s look at it the Big Victorian Clubs
1:Collingwood
2:Carlton
3:Geelong
4:Richmond
5:Essendon
6:Hawthorn
Wouldn’t give a Fu:k about North Melbourne or any other club.
Going forward for Example
I can see going forward the AFL will consist of the 6 clubs named above
With the following Sydney ,GWS,Port Adelaide,Adelaide,West Coast,Fremantle,Brisbane and Gold Coast and Tasmania.
With new teams being the Bunbury Kangaroos ex North Melbourne and amalgamation of St.Kilda,Melbourne or Western Bulldogs and Melbourne to known as Melbourne Centrels.
Can see this happen by 2035 a 16 team competition .
As North to be relocated it will cost about $500 Million to set up from the AFL then WA Government to build them a new 30k seat stadium .
As for the amalgamation Club AFL to fork out $500 million as well and new team will be based at Marvel.
Unfortunately if the amalgamation club don’t take off can see one the 3 clubs folding as the AFL and the big 6 Victorian clubs and Interstate clubs will force them out like forcing North going to WA and trust me they won’t lose sleep over it.

 

[glengowan]

Keep the Melbourne clubs branding, uniform, history etc. Scrap The Devils.

1. Merger: Gold Coast Kangaroos (merger of Gold Coast and North Melbourne, based in Gold Coast)
2. Take Over: Western Bulldogs (take over of GWS by Western Bulldogs, based in western Sydney)
3. Relocation: Tasmania Demons
4. Relocation: Canberra Saints

16 team competition for 2028:
6 Melbourne Based Clubs
6 ex-Melbourne Clubs based interstate with venues kept in Melbourne
2 SA Clubs
2 WA Clubs

Larger list sizes and slightly reduced game time. 30 Round home and away season from March to September. Final 8 in October.

Each of the 4 newly merged/relocated teams to play 2 home games and 2 away games in Melbourne against any of the other 6-ex Melbourne clubs, plus the 6 away games against the Melbourne based clubs, meaning a total of 10 games per season played in Melbourne.