Expansion Alternate AFL World 1987

[footyfan1978]

Victorians aren't special in this regard. People can believe that the VFA popularity of the 70s and early 80s would have continued but the records show it waned heavily in the 90s as the AFL took off as a national comp and all the state leagues fell into line as feeder comps.

You talking out of your arse here. I already pointed out the reason it waned heavily was not because it was a secondary league but because the premier league here encroached into Sunday game times and then totally invaded it in late 80's and early 90's. The VFA was already a secondary comp. Nothing changed massively there. It had been well and truly secondary here for nine decades but still had a very good following. Why, because it had Sunday to itself and people had appetite for footy on Sunday even if it was not the most elite level. It was good football. Worth watching just like WAFL and SANFL footy were. You create a distinct different part of weekend for those leagues to the elite and every chance it could be replicated there too.. It was never tried. I'm suggesting in alternative world if it was done , there is no real reason to say it would not work very well for good of all these leagues and footy in general.

 

[Scotland]

You talking out of your arse here. I already pointed out the reason it waned heavily was not because it was a secondary league but because the premier league here encroached into Sunday game times and then totally invaded it in late 80's and early 90's. The VFA was already a secondary comp. Nothing changed massively there. It had been well and truly secondary here for nine decades but still had a very good following. Why, because it had Sunday to itself and people had appetite for footy on Sunday even if it was not the most elite level. It was good football. Worth watching just like WAFL and SANFL footy were. You create a distinct different part of weekend for those leagues to the elite and every chance it could be replicated there too.. It was never tried. I'm suggesting in alternative world if it was done , there is no real reason to say it would not work very well for good of all these leagues and footy in general.

Do you honestly reckon that if there were no AFL games in Melbourne on Sundays that the VFL/VFA would have anywhere near the popularity it did in the 1980s? We're talking about a lifetime ago in the context of modern sport. You'd still have a national comp with the best 800 players in the country getting 24/7 coverage and then you'd have a state league with 500 of the next best players (not the 500 next best) at most getting one game on 7Two or ABC each week. Apples and oranges.

Once upon a time players moved between state leagues. Greats like Stephen Michael and Barrie Robran declined joining the VFL. You used to be able to make a bit of cash playing in the VFA. And the WAFL and SANFL. A national, professional competition changed the landscape dramatically.

 

[footyfan1978]

Do you honestly reckon that if there were no AFL games in Melbourne on Sundays that the VFL/VFA would have anywhere near the popularity it did in the 1980s? We're talking about a lifetime ago in the context of modern sport. You'd still have a national comp with the best 800 players in the country getting 24/7

This shows you still not got it.
Read the opening post again in this alternate reality of 1987 for football. It says 14 clubs. That is not 800 players. There is about 160 players less required for the premier league in this alternate football world. The alternate footy world I am talking is not taking every little thing from these leagues. They do not get 800 players ripped from these leagues and they do not get Sunday football schedules. It shows you not getting these important aspects. Yes, I honestly think this alternate 1987 path could well keep the VFA alive and well like it had been for decades when Sunday football was it's time of the weekend for people to enjoy.

 

[Scotland]

Your alternate football world would've lasted until about 1990.

A 14 team AFL would still eat the VFA for breakfast just like it did until the Crows joined and made it 15 teams in 1991.

 

[AndyD]

This is our sport, forgot the rest of the world. We look after our own game. If the admin agreed in 1987 to do it this way, that is the concept in this alternate universe. Also this is not about expecting the state leagues to be competing with the elite league. It is about giving it a continued niche time on weekend where it keeps a spotlight even though it is not expected to be at the level of the truly elite league. VFA was nowhere near as good as VFL footy but whilst it had Sunday football as a spotlight it had a good way of being something plenty loved seeing that had history and culture too. The WAFL and SANFL getting same nice market each Sunday in their states in alternate footy path is a concept you not getting. You not seen how it worked here well.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, even if you’re Aussie. Those leagues necessarily would be in direct competition with each other for players/sponsors etc. Would both the national comp and each state league have drafts as the primary entry pathway for players? Out of contract players in the state leagues would also create bidding wars that would create financial issues for their clubs in trying to retain them


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Carringbush2010]

In the long term, it's in the best interests of the league that some Melbourne teams get relocated or merged.

Please help us all understand how this will help the league.

The only way I see this working is the fan base of those clubs just roll over and accept it and future generations aren't lost to the game.

Please explain how these fan bases are just going to roll over and accept mergers and or relocation's of their clubs and keep following the league / game.

 

[Kingpin]

The problem with admitting traditional clubs from SA and WA state leagues into the AFL would be that fans of other teams from the same leagues wont follow those clubs. If you want newly admitted clubs to have the strongest following possible from the start, you have to form new teams. There's no way around it.

Think of it this way. Would you support an Essendon team playing in the SANFL or WAFL if it was the only Victorian team?

Yep - and that was always going to be the biggest stumbling block to doing that.
For example, back in the 1980s when the TFL still had a pretty good following (its strongest years were up until 1974), if they brought in Glenorchy or Clarence or North Hobart or even North Launceston from up north into the VFL, they wouldn't draw VFL-standard crowds simply because supporters of the other clubs wouldn't be caught dead supporting them.
Bringing in something completely new rather than one of the traditional clubs with followings that simply weren't big enough for that level was the way to go because it was free of any supposed club bias.

 

[Scotland]

Please help us all understand how this will help the league.

The only way I see this working is the fan base of those clubs just roll over and accept it and future generations aren't lost to the game.

Please explain how these fan bases are just going to roll over and accept mergers and or relocation's of their clubs and keep following the league / game.

Merging makes no sense unless you want fewer teams and even then it makes very little sense. You can't just merge St Kilda and Footscray and call them the Bolte Bridge Bandits and expect that the collective fan bases are going to keep turning up.

The time to consolidate was in the 80s and 90s. The smaller Melbourne clubs are more financially independent than the clubs in NSW and Qld. The only reasons we have GC and GWS is that the AFL have a hard on for pushing into rugby league heartland and there's a commercial value to having a game each week in NSW and Qld when negotiating TV rights. Despite two clubs sharing the biggest city it's likely that in 50 years GWS still won't have outgrown Sydney Showground. The NRL averages 15k per game competition wide. Western Sydney Wanderers get 10-15k, I think about 8 people turn up now when the Waratahs play. Attending sport is different across the border.

There are over 1m club members now. If you take out the other states then on average it's about 68k per club in Victoria. Membership totals are pretty dubious, but on those numbers Victoria is looking OK.

Given that people seem to just cop the AFL's ridiculous 18/22 fixture and the impact it has each year there is no reason to look at reducing the number of teams given how much money 207 games a year makes now.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Given that people seem to just cop the AFL's ridiculous 18/22 fixture and the impact it has each year there is no reason to look at reducing the number of teams given how much money 207 games a year makes now.

Well this is the crux and source of frustration for many fans, and you're right the public just put up with it. Until the public start voting with their feet and their remotes little will change.

HQ has its fan base bent over a barrel in this regard and they know it.

In saying that there is little if any option. The players won't accept an extended season, HQ won't accept less and they know the only viable option to reduce teams is north of the Murray. And as you rightly point out they'll continue throwing money down the drain in a seemingly futile attempt to garner public interest where there is little.

All of that equals no budge, can't see it changing any time soon.

 

[Scotland]

We're more likely to get a 20 team comp with everyone playing each other once and an extended finals series. The AFL are already sniffing around the idea of a 'wildcard weekend' even though we don't have conferences.

 

[Carringbush2010]

We're more likely to get a 20 team comp with everyone playing each other once and an extended finals series. The AFL are already sniffing around the idea of a 'wildcard weekend' even though we don't have conferences.

And then there's the argument of diluting the talent pool, which I'm not sold on. 20 teams with a list of 42 = 840. We live in a population of 25 million, any decent footballer can be developed into very very good players.

The dogs of 2016 and the Pies of 2018 are examples, after 2017 and near zero list change the Pies list of mehs played off in a GF the next year.

Coaching and development is key, yeah ok there are the absolute elite natural footballers that are far and few between maybe 20 in the league at best. But every other player now matter spud we think they are absolutely tear up the 2nd tier comps.

I'd argue the talent pool in this alternate AFL wouldn't be any worse or better.

 

[Back One Out]

For those of us that lived through the football in the 1980's and saw the transition of so much of football clubs and leagues in next couple of decades I wonder if we can imagine an alternate footy world where things took an alternate path as if two worlds branched off in reality.

Suspend every little detail of the time and how this came about, just imagine it did.
Somehow the leagues got together for the good of the overall game and things change which would not be to everyone's liking but it got decided for the good of the sport overall this was what is happening from 1987 onwards:


The VFL adopt it's name change to AFL for 1987 and it is to be a 14 club league for now on.

7 current VFL clubs stay as is. Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Richmond, Geelong, Melbourne and North Melbourne
The two worst historical clubs on premierships get told they can keep their identity as a club and their debts are cleared but have to go play in the VFA... St.Kilda and Footscray

Two clubs each, from WAFL and SANFL are added to the expanded AFL. Port Adelaide Magpies, Norwood, East Fremantle Sharks and West Perth Falcons
Hawks relocate to Tasmania as Hobart Hawks
Fitzroy relocate to Brisbane as Brisbane Lions and debt all cleared.

The AFL agree to that Sunday football is off limits except for Sydney Swans and all traditional state leagues including the VFA get the niche market of Sunday for them to get AFL free in their state. AFL games can be played Friday night to Saturday night on weekend but apart from Sydney Swans no other games can ever be programmed for a Sunday. Sunday is state league football day forever more.
SANFL becomes an 8 club league for Sunday's.
VFA gets Footscray and St.Kilda added to it and Sunday football market in Victoria.
WAFL has to decide if it runs as a 6 club league in Perth on Sunday's or invites two other suburban clubs to remain as 8 there for Sunday's.

TV broadcasts rights are advanced and all finances are underwritten to fix club and league finances in the late 80's.

Would we be in a better situation of the sport in such an alternative footy world timeline ?
Would all the fans have an AFL club they follow in first part of weekend and a state league club each Sunday ?

No.


I think you should let go of your silly dreams and face reality



Premierships since 1987

7 - Hawthorn
6 -
5 -
4 - West Coast
3 - Geelong, Brisbane
2 - Richmond, Sydney, Collingwood, Essendon, North Melb, Adelaide, Carlton
1 - W.Bulldogs, Port Adelaide



Wooden Spoons since 1987

5 Carlton
4 Richmond, Brisbane
3 Sydney, Melbourne, St Kilda
2 Fitzroy, Gold Coast, GWS Giants
1 Essendon, Collingwood, Fremantle, West Coast, W.Bulldogs




Why would you attempt to start a discussion on this topic and alienate the fans of the AFL's most successful club since 1987 by relocating our club to Hobart?


You idiot.

 

[terrybull]

If one wanted to keep all clubs intact from the state leagues then 2 conferences would probably be the only way.
This idea does not save the VFA though

Thus Eastern Conference (EC) (19 teams)
VFL (11) NSW (3) QLD (2) TAS (2) ACT (1)

West Central Conference (WC) (19 teams)
SANFL (10) WAFL (8) NT (1)

Finals

Week 1

Challenge Final (which conference to host Grand Final)
1st (EC) vs 1st (WC) - played on neutral ground New Zealand

Qualifying Finals
1st QF - 2nd (EC) vs 3rd (WC)
2nd QF - 2nd (WC) vs 3rd (EC)

Elimination Finals
1st EF - 4th (EC) vs 5th (WC)
2nd EF - 4th (WC) vs 5th (EC)



Week 2

Qualifying Quarter Finals

1st QQF 1st (EC) vs winner 2nd QF
2nd QQF- 1st (WC) vs winner 1st QF

Elimination Quarter Finals

1st EQF- loser 1st QF vs winner 1st EF
2nd EQF- loser 2nd QF vs winner 2nd EF



Week 3

Semi Finals
1st SF loser 1st QQF vs winner 2nd EQF
2nd SF loser 2nd QQF vs winner 1st EQF

Week 4

Preliminary Finals
1st PF - winner 1st QQF vs winner 2nd SF
2nd PF - winner 2nd QQF vs winner 1st SF

Week 5

Grand Final (held at highest finisher ground or if the same then the result of the Challenge Final

winner 1st PF vs winner 2nd PF

So an example what the 2020 season could have looked like if It got starter in 1987 (and this case all the favorites winning their Finals)
Eastern Conference Top 5

1. Hawthorn
2. Sydney
3. Hobart
4. Fitzroy
5. Brisbane

Western Conference

1. North Adelaide
2. Subiaco
3. East Fremantle
4. Port Adelaide
5. Darwin

Week 1

Challenge Final in New Zealand
Hawthorn vs North Adelaide

Qualifying /Elimination Finals

Qualifying Finals
1st QF - Sydney vs East Fremantle
2nd QF - Subiaco vs Hobart

Elimination Finals
1st EF - Fitzroy vs Darwin
2nd EF - Port Adelaide vs Brisbane



Week 2

Quarter Finals

1st QQF - Hawthorn vs Subiaco
2nd QQF - North Adelaide vs Sydney

Elimination Quarter Finals
1st EQF - East Fremantle vs Fitzroy
2nd EQF - Hobart vs Port Adelaide



Week 3

Semi Finals
1st SF - Subiaco vs Hobart
2nd SF - Sydney vs East Fremantle

Week 4

Preliminary Finals
1st PF - Hawthorn vs Sydney
2nd PF - North Adelaide vs Subiaco

Week 5

Grand Final
Hawthorn vs North Adelaide

No this is not realistic ha ha

 

[footyfan1978]

No.

Why would you attempt to start a discussion on this topic and alienate the fans of the AFL's most successful club since 1987 by relocating our club to Hobart?


You idiot.

Look you idiot, I did not attempt to start a discussion. I DID start a discussion. John Kennedy would be proud of me...

and somebody had to be alienated in this alternate path. You guys got the Huddo link to Tassie so it was fun example of one of the clubs relocating there.
But as this discussion went on you will find I really think Saints would be a better fit to relocate in 1987 given how badly they had been going here in the 80's and the connection to Baldock from Tassie. He might have even been coaching them around the time.

 

[footyfan1978]

Would both the national comp and each state league have drafts as the primary entry pathway for players?

Good question. It is 1987 in this alternate path. We are heading towards premier league going to a draft system. I think all leagues agree the state league levels just have zones to work with and for those retired from AFL and wanting to play state league level for a few years, they would be free agents to make their own arrangements with state league clubs. The national league clubs would get some state based players concessions in opening two rounds of national draft but overall the AFL would be draft based system from then on. The under 19's system gone overnight and teenagers good enough in their zone to play for a state based clubs. Instead of inventing TAC clubs for under 18. All the best youth before drafted in AFL clubs are playing with their most local state based league club. So someone like Chis Judd a decade later is playing for Sandringham Zebras in the VFA each Sunday before he is old enough to be drafted to an AFL club.

 

[phlogiston]

1981: 12 team VFL, average H&A attendance 25,409
1986: 12 team VFL with Sydney, average H&A attendance 22,514
1991: First season with a team in the 3 main markets, average H&A attendance 23,013
1995: First 16 team season, average H&A attendance 29,078
2019: Most attended season on aggregate, average H&A attendance 35,122

Prior to expansion (and no one watching Brisbane) the last time the VFL had average crowds under 20,000 was 1953. The competition went from Victorian only and semi-pro to national and fully professional in the space of a few decades and we are really only up 10,000 per game. The biggest feather in the AFL's cap (other than counting their TV rights billions) is that they've managed to get aggregate attendances to more than double. We now play 207 matches including finals compared to 138.

But it's different to how it was. An average of 35k means Collingwood get 50k vs whoever, Richmond vs Carlton gets 80k, Essendon get 45k at Marvel, WC get 55k in Perth etc. and then the rest is brought down by GWS and GC having home games, Melbourne teams having home games vs Port and Freo, Hawthorn and North playing in Tassie, Melbourne playing in Alice Springs etc. If you look back at the 80s most teams weren't a long way off the 20-25k average. If you were a Bulldogs fan you attended 11 games at the Whitten Oval and then maybe the odd away game. Etc. Fitzroy battled for support but Haw/Ess/Carl who were winning all the flags were getting at most 25-30k over a season.

Melbourne has become sort of two speed. The top teams get 60k per game, the bottom teams 20k or less. Fans flock to "blockbusters" and abandon other fixtures. The averages look good but they don't paint a realistic picture. Hawthorn's home crowds (MCG only) ranged from 14k to 66k. Melbourne 20k to 74k. There aren't many clubs who consistently get big crowds without opposition supporters padding the numbers. AFL HQ love it. They have a hard on for having a near full MCG and will happily shuffle around 18 into 22 to get the double ups they want because the average of 90k + 15k is still more than the average of 40k + 40k.

I see what you're saying, but perhaps a better comparison would be a percentage of potential crowd rather than absolute numbers. In 1981, games were played in much smaller venues (Western Oval, Arden St, Junction Oval, Princes Park, etc). Nowadays I think the smallest stadium would be either Metricon or Spotless, and I would guess that they would be far larger than some of the old suburban grounds in terms of crowd capacity.

I'm making up the numbers here, but suppose for simplicity we had six games per week where four were at suburban grounds with a max capacity of 20K, one at Waverley with a capacity of 90K, and one at the MCG with a capacity of 100K. So that means the theoretical maximum crowd is 270K per week, for a weekly average max possible crowd of 45K). So the average attendance was 25.5K out of a possible maximum of 45K, or 57%.

Today we have nine games per round, say two at the new clubs' grounds (25K each), one at Kardinia Park (36K max), two in Beirut (Docklands) (53K max), two at the G (100K max), one at the new stadium in Perth (60K), and one at Adelaide Oval (53K max), for a weekly max possible crowd of 505K. This leads to an average maximum possible crowd of 56K, so the 2019 figures is 63% os possible maximum attendance.

So I agree on they've managed to double the aggregate attendance, but the proportion of the potential maximum attendance hasn't moved that much. Rising tide lifts all boats and that.

P

 

[Scotland]

I see what you're saying, but perhaps a better comparison would be a percentage of potential crowd rather than absolute numbers. In 1981, games were played in much smaller venues (Western Oval, Arden St, Junction Oval, Princes Park, etc). Nowadays I think the smallest stadium would be either Metricon or Spotless, and I would guess that they would be far larger than some of the old suburban grounds in terms of crowd capacity.

I'm making up the numbers here, but suppose for simplicity we had six games per week where four were at suburban grounds with a max capacity of 20K, one at Waverley with a capacity of 90K, and one at the MCG with a capacity of 100K. So that means the theoretical maximum crowd is 270K per week, for a weekly average max possible crowd of 45K). So the average attendance was 25.5K out of a possible maximum of 45K, or 57%.

Today we have nine games per round, say two at the new clubs' grounds (25K each), one at Kardinia Park (36K max), two in Beirut (Docklands) (53K max), two at the G (100K max), one at the new stadium in Perth (60K), and one at Adelaide Oval (53K max), for a weekly max possible crowd of 505K. This leads to an average maximum possible crowd of 56K, so the 2019 figures is 63% os possible maximum attendance.

So I agree on they've managed to double the aggregate attendance, but the proportion of the potential maximum attendance hasn't moved that much. Rising tide lifts all boats and that.

P

This is true, but then Melbourne played their home games at the MCG and Waverley and got plenty of sub 20k crowds. Just playing in a big stadium wasn't a guarantee of getting a big crowd. Richmond (MCG) stopped playing at Punt Rd in the 60s. Hawthorn (Waverley via Princes Park, now MCG) stopped playing at Glenferrie in the 70s. Essendon and Collingwood left Windy Hill and Vic Park respectively in the 90s. These teams have mostly flourished from playing in bigger venues, but there have been plenty of games over the years that would've left empty seats in the sold suburban grounds.

I think there's been a cultural shift. Back in the days of suburban footy there were IMO a higher % of club supporters. You go for Essendon then you go to watch them play at Windy Hill (or MCG, Waverley, wherever they happened to be playing) and you might go to the odd away game and finals. These days Melburnians are more likely to pick and choose select games to go to based on day, time, venue, opponent, position of Venus etc. People who go for Carlton or Richmond (or neither) are more excited to go to Rd 1 and be part of a crowd of 85,000 whether it's a home or away game than see their own team play in front of 25k at Docklands even if it's a 1 vs 2 clash.

We like to compare crowds to the Bundesliga and Premier League but it's not a valid comparison. Newcastle United (who stink) average 52k per game over 19 home games at their own 52k stadium vs whoever happens to be in the league that season. Richmond average 60k (which is great, but up 50% from 2016 when they stunk) playing 10/11 home games in a neutral 100k stadium (with MCC and AFL members) with 6 of those coming against teams from their own state, plus two against Bris/Syd who have some following. Getting 39k vs GWS and 42k vs Port is commendable in AFL terms, but it's a long way from having a home game against all 17 other sides and averaging a packed house. The only meaningful measures of club support is memberships (inflated) and home crowds vs teams from other states.

 

[Roylion]

One always hear that fans state that they follow their team anywhere, which is not the case. Ask the SANFL and WAFL clubs who seen a decline in crowd numbers.

People follow top level sport. Those WAFL and SANFL clubs still play in their competitions against their traditional rivals. I wish Fitzroy still had that same opportunity. Had Fitzroy gone to the VFA / VFL in 1997 with their same identity, I would have never attended an AFL match again.

It’s a pity that there is not 15-20 000 at Fitzroy VAFA home games (don’t know that the capacity of Brunswick Oval). But that would shown the AFL that the club becomes before the League.

Part of the problem was that Fitzroy was effectively in recess for 12 years from 1997-2008. The Club still existed, consisting of directors, shareholders, paid up members and other commercial operations such as the "Fitzroy Shop", but had no on-field presence for Fitzroy people to follow.

 

[Carringbush2010]

We like to compare crowds to the Bundesliga and Premier League but it's not a valid comparison

No it's not valid because we don't have the populations they have (EPL 66 mill Bundesligua 83mill) and those leagues have many many more games in their fixtures. One could argue that if the AFL had as many games they'd have the highest and highest average attendances even with our meager population.

 

[Carringbush2010]

One always hear that fans state that they follow their team anywhere, which is not the case. Ask the SANFL and WAFL clubs who seen a decline in crowd numbers.

Vic fans would do the same if WA or SA had the biggest footy population and the WAFL or SANFL was the highest profile league that attracted the best players from the land.

However that is an alternate universe and the fact remains vic fans would follow their clubs because their clubs will be in a league that is the highest profile as a result of the biggest footy market. Always has been and always will be.

I am somewhat surprised that the wa and sa public so readily left their leagues to the tumbleweeds in favour of brand new franchises, but I don't think vic club fans would because there'd be no incentive to do so.

 

[Scotland]

No it's not valid because we don't have the populations they have (EPL 66 mill Bundesligua 83mill) and those leagues have many many more games in their fixtures. One could argue that if the AFL had as many games they'd have the highest and highest average attendances even with our meager population.

They also have league systems, not just a league. England has 3 professional divisions underneath the Premier League, Germany has 2. The AFL has 0. The next rung down is the semi-pro state leagues. The EFL Championship has 24 teams in it, 9 of which have stadiums that hold 30k+. 8.2m people have attended Championship matches so far this year to go with 11m for the Premier League, 3.3m for League One and 2m for League Two. And that ignores League Cup, FA Cup and any Champion's League games held in the country. The AFL record including finals is 7.6m, so we're about 30% of the aggregate from 45% of the population, and all those seasons are still going.

Bradford City are getting 14,000 a game in League Two. No Australian rules team in any state league or lower gets anywhere near that. The appetite for attending lower level sport in this country is tiny. The 19th best team in the country is lucky to get a couple of thousand through the gates and none of the players make a living out of it. The average salary in League Two in England (i.e. division 4) is still 40,000 pounds (average wage is 35k), going up to 70,000 in League Two, 335,000 in the Championship and printing money in the Premier League. By comparison Tim Kelly was an apprentice electrician before he got drafted.

If the AFL played a full H&A season plus finals (315 games) the aggregate would be higher but the average would fall. The highest season average came before GC and GWS entered so you have to factor in 6 more more games for each of them, plus corresponding away games that most fans don't seem to want to attend.

 

[Carringbush2010]

They also have league systems, not just a league. England has 3 professional divisions underneath the Premier League, Germany has 2. The AFL has 0. The next rung down is the semi-pro state leagues. The EFL Championship has 24 teams in it, 9 of which have stadiums that hold 30k+. 8.2m people have attended Championship matches so far this year to go with 11m for the Premier League, 3.3m for League One and 2m for League Two. And that ignores League Cup, FA Cup and any Champion's League games held in the country. The AFL record including finals is 7.6m, so we're about 30% of the aggregate from 45% of the population, and all those seasons are still going.

Bradford City are getting 14,000 a game in League Two. No Australian rules team in any state league or lower gets anywhere near that. The appetite for attending lower level sport in this country is tiny. The 19th best team in the country is lucky to get a couple of thousand through the gates and none of the players make a living out of it. The average salary in League Two in England (i.e. division 4) is still 40,000 pounds (average wage is 35k), going up to 70,000 in League Two, 335,000 in the Championship and printing money in the Premier League. By comparison Tim Kelly was an apprentice electrician before he got drafted.

If the AFL played a full H&A season plus finals (315 games) the aggregate would be higher but the average would fall. The highest season average came before GC and GWS entered so you have to factor in 6 more more games for each of them, plus corresponding away games that most fans don't seem to want to attend.

Seems we agree, you can polish it, dissect it, boil it down, skew it, turn it upside down or right side up, left, right, 45 or 98 degrees.

We just don't have the population to match, IF we had half those populations and equal amount of games you'd be hard pressed to argue we wouldn't match or better those figures in the top top leagues.

In this alternate AFL world it's likely the wafl, sanf vfa/l would have much much stronger numbers than what they have now. In part the reason the 2nd tier comps are currently in tumbleweed status is because the public has been socially engineered to neglect them in order to strengthen the top comp.

Now that the public cannot quench its thirst for the game there's every reason that if we had 315 games that the averages would not drop.

Yes I know it's speculation but given the year on year crowd and tv ratings in comparison to super populations it's fair speculation. Credit to HQ for at least this.

 

[Scotland]

The public can't quench its thirst? The highest aggregate and average crowd figures were achieved by Collingwood in 2010 with 696k @ 63k per game. That was with one home game against WC at Docklands, one home game against WB at Docklands and one home game against Adelaide at the MCG. The other 8 were all at the MCG against other Victorian sides. Compare that to 2018 (they made the GF, hardly a down season) and it was 549k @ 50k. That's a substantial drop. Also not surprising given they had home games against WC, Port, Freo and Gold Coast plus played the WB at Docklands again. The team that mostly plays in a 100k seat stadium and holds the record for the biggest crowds got 23k to a home game in 2017. All the high drawing teams only play 11 home games and fans lose interest in some of them. Hawthorn really only play 8. I doubt their fans are going to be too enthusiastic about another couple of MCG games against GWS and Freo.

I don't think people realise how much the AFL already milk the fixture with double ups and getting the right teams playing at the right times. Another factor to consider is that the Premier League operates like the VFL did in the 80s. On Saturday night (our time) there were 6 games on at the same time including Arsenal and Liverpool both hosting home games. The AFL don't even like having two games running parallel on Saturday arvo/night, not a chance they'd schedule Carl/Rich and Ess/Coll at the same time and dilute the crowd/TV audience.

If we played a full H&A season I reckon the average would drop below 30k per game.

 

[Evolved1]

Please help us all understand how this will help the league.

The only way I see this working is the fan base of those clubs just roll over and accept it and future generations aren't lost to the game.

Please explain how these fan bases are just going to roll over and accept mergers and or relocation's of their clubs and keep following the league / game.

The AFL makes decisions primarily based on long term business projections. The cultural mix and sporting landscape in Melbourne is a lot more diverse now than it was in the last century, so I expect the AFL's slice of the sporting pie in Victoria to be cut as some of the public shifts towards rugby and moreso soccer.

How will the AFL make up for that loss in Victoria? By moving into other markets. For now, Melbourne can sustain 9 teams, but I think that wont always be the case. When the numbers don't stack up, the AFL should look to merge and/or relocate financially underperforming teams.

Fifty years from now, will anyone care about the Fitzroy Lions? Does anyone miss University now?

I personally think fans aren't as rusted on as they were 20 or 30 years ago. If Essendon folded or merged, I'd support another team as long as it's not Carlton, Collingwood, Richmond, Hawthorn or North Melb.

 

[Scotland]

Fifty years from now, will anyone care about the Fitzroy Lions?

Depends if Roylion is still alive or not.