An alternative to the 'National' competition

[Coolangatta]

I think we've established that no matter how many unsporting advantages his club gets over other clubs eg 13 games on home ground, 11 with a home state advantage, just to name one advantage. Too much can never be enough.

I doubt even my proposals for the H&A season and finals would go anywhere near to satisfying him and some others in these threads. It's got nothing to do with fairness. He's just whinging because his club isn't gifted the premiership every year. My proposal addresses that.

To summarise: We've established non Melbourne based clubs already get very significant and measurable advantages over Melbourne based clubs. It's Melbourne based clubs that are significantly disadvantaged. I think apart from proposals that will make the completion a joke, this thread and other like it are done.

The myth of the disadvantaged non Melbourne clubs is well and truely busted. In fact the opposite is the case.

Yeah nah you could argue the travelling interstate teams does negates their home ground advantage.

And all interstate clubs should get at least 2-3 games minimum at the MCG. At least get a bit of familiarity with the ground where GFs are gonna be played at until 2059.

If the AFL want games to be based in Darwin, Cairns etc, then put teams there eventually so that clubs can actually play all games at their home ground. For the meantime, play pre season games there or add a top end round where all clubs play up north.

Then start rotating the GF every second year post 2059. Do I think interstate side’s would start winning more premierships? No, not necessarily (see 2020 and 2021). But that is not why I’d rotate it.

It’s because Optus and Adelaide oval are great stadiums and would host some awesome GFs (Optus has already shown that).

And it is a national competition. Brisbane will have a new stadium for the Olympics and I’d imagine by then Sydney would have one too. Should never have been ****ing extended by that long in the first place, now I think that is Vic bias.

But as for the home and away fixture, meh, not everyone plays each other twice or once so it’s never gonna be perfect. I don’t care and I think if you’re good enough you’ll be up there in the top four or five by years end.

It’s pretty clear to me that Collingwood, Port, and Brisbane are the best teams this year. They’d be top 3 no matter what the fixture looked like imo. Same goes for other dominant clubs in past seasons. I don’t think it matters that much.

Look at the Eagles in 2018. Didn’t lose in Melbourne because they were good enough. Now they can’t even be competitive at home. If interstate teams struggle with ground dimensions, that’s up to them to do something about it.

Can’t rely on the AFL to give them some games at the G, that’s no guarantee, so train with MCG dimensions or find coaches and players who are familiar with it.

 

[Carringbush2010]

The Vic population thing is a massive misnomer. Look who migrates to Melbourne in massive numbers and tell me how many of them watch or participate in Australian Rules Football?

I never mentioned immigration, I stated the population differences in footy heartland states and why it's very highly likely there is more paying people interested in the competition in / from vic than anyone else in the country.

The other misnomer is Eastern States television audience. Look at the numbers. Brisbane/Sydney TV audiences are still pitiful. It's still largely a southern state game. It is only a niche sport in NSW and QLD. It will not takeover in those states as much as the AFL want to believe it will. Gold Coast and GWS are a waste of time.

No ones talking about states north of the murray, willing to bet though the biggest tv market is in / from vic.

Just get rid of North and Melbourne. Nobody would even notice.

As has been pointed out to you previously, North has 50k members and like every other club probably much more paying non members.

HQ aren't just gonna dump these clubs fan bases, even then, as has been pointed out many times. The club would have to consult their members, then IF the members agree to dissolve (which they wouldn't), then it'd have to go to an all club vote. Seeing how the two clubs provide the product that all clubs receive funds from, it's unlikely it'd get

Tear up corrupt MCG Contract, "Blockbuster" bullshit mandates and tell the Victorian Government they can't buy favours.

Yeah you reckon HQ are gonna tear up the contract and blockbuster games and tell govt. to 'shove' it to their own financial detriment? Yeah nah.

Papa, you perpetually display irrational wishes '*the vics' and will never accept the why's of the league we have.

Meh, enjoy your misery.

 

[Papa G]

I never mentioned immigration, I stated the population differences in footy heartland states and why it's very highly likely there is more paying people interested in the competition in / from vic than anyone else in the country.

No ones talking about states north of the murray, willing to bet though the biggest tv market is in / from vic.

As has been pointed out to you previously, North has 50k members and like every other club probably much more paying non members.

HQ aren't just gonna dump these clubs fan bases, even then, as has been pointed out many times. The club would have to consult their members, then IF the members agree to dissolve (which they wouldn't), then it'd have to go to an all club vote. Seeing how the two clubs provide the product that all clubs receive funds from, it's unlikely it'd get

Yeah you reckon HQ are gonna tear up the contract and blockbuster games and tell govt. to 'shove' it to their own financial detriment? Yeah nah.

Papa, you perpetually display irrational wishes '*the vics' and will never accept the why's of the league we have.

Meh, enjoy your misery.

You started a thread about an alternative. I provided one. A fair one. What could and should have been. You call it irrational.

Irrational is believing North Melbourne actually have 50,000 paying members.

 

[Coolangatta]

Maybe a 20th.

Just because there's a waiting list at wc doesn't mean those fans are gonna jump ship just to be able to get games, sure they'll probably memberships of the 20th but will still pledge allegiance to wc.

More broadly though even if you get your expansion teams into the distant future, A/ It's into the distant future so it doesn't address what so many are pissed off about now B/ There's still a very high probability the vic market would still be the bulk of the market.

It's not addressing the problems, it's just adding more clubs.

Yeah I actually think Canberra is more viable than WA3 but wouldn’t say no to WA3 as 20 or 21. It gives WA more exposure to footy and those “Eagles forever” types who take their kids to the footy might convert their kids to the new team. Plus it adds that Friday night double header which is good for broadcasters.

In the next 10-25 years I do see Canberra, Perth, and a 2nd team in Brisbane as viable options. 30+ years for NT or NQ and even then yes I think it might be difficult to get going, just as Tassie was.

 

[Carringbush2010]

The Vic Bias I talk about is fixture times, commentators forgetting names, not knowing names of grounds outside of Melbourne, not knowing names of players, forgetting the names of interstate coaches, spelling names wrong - all of this is easily solved stuff but you guys just don't why?

But fixing these will not fix the geography/ travel problem, the more participation numbers from vic, the more paying fans from vic, the GF at the G, more vic clubs than non vic clubs etc. that most non vic fans are pissed off about.

The fixture times are likely to maximise revenue, commentators are media, not much we can do about that, but those are the least of the inequities.

 

[Carringbush2010]

You started a thread about an alternative. I provided one. A fair one. What could and should have been. You call it irrational.

Irrational is believing North Melbourne actually have 50,000 paying members.

From the north website



Close enough to 50k, none of what you wish for is rational.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Yeah I actually think Canberra is more viable than WA3 but wouldn’t say no to WA3 as 20 or 21. It gives WA more exposure to footy and those “Eagles forever” types who take their kids to the footy might convert their kids to the new team. Plus it adds that Friday night double header which is good for broadcasters.

In the next 10-25 years I do see Canberra, Perth, and a 2nd team in Brisbane as viable options. 30+ years for NT or NQ and even then yes I think it might be difficult to get going, just as Tassie was.

Ok, but none of that is addressing the issues that non vic fans are complaining about.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Well that's s**t and shouldn't have happened. The West Australian paper is pure garbage lol, they hate everything and everyone, and when they are positive it's because apparently their commentary inspired the win.

Actually this is a sensationalized statement about the wa media, sure they're bias like every other media but they do scribe / comment about non wa and give generally honest assessment.

But they don't 'hate everything and everyone' or 'when they are positive it's because apparently their commentary inspired the win' all the time.

This is painting the wa media as blindly parochial, which there maybe some members, but this is not a correct overall assessment of them.

Back to the thread relevance, let's say the vic media does remember the coaches and there's a mechanism to retain vic and non vic players to non vic clubs, or even Friday night / big ticket non vic games in prime tv slots that you wish for, well that won't get rid of the elephant in the room.

That might appease you, but it won't appease the bulk of non vic fans, that is evident on these threads alone.

The elephant in the room is that because the bulk of participants and fans (read $) are from vic then it'll always be skewed that way.

So how to address that? Put vic back in the vic league and everyone else back in their home state leagues, no travel problems, no pandering more to the larger market, player retention etc. etc. etc.

Yeah I know that isn't gonna happen, but it is the only true way to equalize things OR all non vic fans can just do a big collective *you to the AFL and vote with feet and remotes and put their numbers back into the state leagues which already exist.

And the state leagues would survive just fine from a public interest perspective.

 

[Coolangatta]

Ok, but none of that is addressing the issues that non vic fans are complaining about.

Currently? I don’t like that we’re playing Collingwood at Marvel instead of the MCG and I’m sure Collingwood doesn’t either. AFL should do something about that Marvel contract. Sold home games should be voluntary only.

I wouldn’t have extended the MCG contract to 2059 but it’s here to stay but what they can do is not keep extending it and incorporate Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane, and Sydney into the next extension. But again, that’s long term.

Just more MCG games for interstate teams would be nice as a short term fix.

If Brisbane are smart, their new stadium will have similar dimensions to the MCG.

Most of what I propose is long term. More MCG games, a new GF contract post 2059 that’s not just MCG based, and a conference system if we go beyond 20 teams or even starting at 20 teams.

 

[Papa G]

Dude says dropping 2 legacy Vic teams and the expansion teams out of the AFL is irrational, then advocates for everybody returning to state based leagues. I don't think The Bush of 2010 knows what rationality means.

 

[Coolangatta]

Dude says dropping 2 legacy Vic teams and the expansion teams out of the AFL is irrational, then advocates for everybody returning to state based leagues. I don't think The Bush of 2010 knows what rationality means.

He knows it won’t happen. All state leagues would struggle if we all went back to that, just as the VFL was struggling in 1986 and looked to expansion to inject some much needed cash into it. But I’m under no illusions the WAFL etc didn’t have problems either.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Dude says dropping 2 legacy Vic teams and the expansion teams out of the AFL is irrational, then advocates for everybody returning to state based leagues. I don't think The Bush of 2010 knows what rationality means.

But you're calling for the AFL being fair, dropping Port would be just as fair, you get more distribution than other clubs.

Has Port Power ever been out of debt?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Currently? I don’t like that we’re playing Collingwood at Marvel instead of the MCG and I’m sure Collingwood doesn’t either. AFL should do something about that Marvel contract. Sold home games should be voluntary only.

I wouldn’t have extended the MCG contract to 2059 but it’s here to stay but what they can do is not keep extending it and incorporate Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane, and Sydney into the next extension. But again, that’s long term.

Just more MCG games for interstate teams would be nice as a short term fix.

If Brisbane are smart, their new stadium will have similar dimensions to the MCG.

Most of what I propose is long term. More MCG games, a new GF contract post 2059 that’s not just MCG based, and a conference system if we go beyond 20 teams or even starting at 20 teams.

Well that is what Collingwood did request coz they knew they'd get more fans than Freo at the G, wanted to swap venues, HQ said no.

Again, let's say somehow we get more MCG games for non vics and the marvel contract is 'fixed' somehow, it still doesn't / won't address what the issues are that most non vics are complaining about. Which is what the thread is about.

More than half the paying market is from vic, and that's why the landscape is the way it is and pisses off the non vic fans.

So how to address that, so that they're not so miserable and angry?

 

[AstonSouffle]

But fixing these will not fix the geography/ travel problem, the more participation numbers from vic, the more paying fans from vic, the GF at the G, more vic clubs than non vic clubs etc. that most non vic fans are pissed off about.

The fixture times are likely to maximise revenue, commentators are media, not much we can do about that, but those are the least of the inequities.

Not much? Bruce and Dennis aren't even Victorian and didn't live in Victoria, in the current environment they would not exist on the big stage and I think that's worthwhile to take a look at why?

Victorian teams aside from the big wigs don't actually fill their stadiums every week, rather the focus from the AFL be to work out how those teams get better.

Plus we've glided over the fact that WA clubs have never had the chance to have poker machines and therefore inflict the massive amounts of damage or profit from them the way everyone else did. You talk about the market? Doubt half the club's there go well if these things never existed in the first place. NRL would have gone to the wall as well mind you.

I'm not saying inequities can be made more equal, i.e FIFO is impossible as Perth is well... it's Perth, its cheaper to go overseas than over east and even then it's still pricey. But surely things can be done, you keep harping on about a solution that isn't a solution. But perhaps you come from a time when the WAFL was a thing and therefore you're ancient (older than my Dad) and I probably can't comprehend the place you're coming from... so is what it is really.

 

[Carringbush2010]

He knows it won’t happen. All state leagues would struggle if we all went back to that, just as the VFL was struggling in 1986 and looked to expansion to inject some much needed cash into it. But I’m under no illusions the WAFL etc didn’t have problems either.

Actually if there is no AFL, the fans would go back to the state leagues, the WAFL and the SANFL would survive quite comfortably and would probably flourish.

If there is an AFL but no vic teams, then vic fans would follow wherever their clubs went, seeing how the vfl already exists and all vic afl clubs have affiliates, that's where they'd end up.

And not's like it was in the 80s where clubs were in trade wars to the bottom to get players in to win flags and were financially destitute. There's argument that the Saints now are in financial trouble but be it the current afl or whatever it would be vfl, they'll survive because either league would redistribute funds to ensure that, because there's paying market.

If somehow we did go to a state league format, that'd shut the whingers up, coz there's no vic market saturation that we have now that causes all of the inequities that non vics are so pissed about.

 

[Carringbush2010]

You talk about the market? Doubt half the club's there go well if these things never existed in the first place.

But that's the thing, because there is public demand for even the smallest vic club, no league and its constituents are gonna throw that away.

It's a different time now, and redistribution does exist, and all clubs get that redistribution so they survive.

But surely things can be done, you keep harping on about a solution that isn't a solution.

Sure, but like I keep harping on about, this is not what most non vic fans are angry about, what they're angry about is the fact the landscape is skewed in favour of the vic market. So how do we address that?

But perhaps you come from a time when the WAFL was a thing and therefore you're ancient (older than my Dad) and I probably can't comprehend the place you're coming from

Yeah I'm 53, so what? Do you think every eagle and docker fan that are ancient like me don't still support their WAFL clubs?, do you think there are no new fans of WAFL clubs from previous generations?

The WAFL is still a thing, it's a quality league that is not that far off the top level, you talk about it like it's chump change, it's not just about you and what you want.

The thread is about how to accept the fact that the vic market dictates the landscape of the league and how to address it.

Not just player retention, fixturing issues, commentary ignorance that you talk about, those things are not what most vic fans are unhappy about, only part of their ire.

 

[Coolangatta]

But that's the thing, because there is public demand for even the smallest vic club, no league and its constituents are gonna throw that away.

It's a different time now, and redistribution does exist, and all clubs get that redistribution so they survive.

Sure, but like I keep harping on about, this is not what most non vic fans are angry about, what they're angry about is the fact the landscape is skewed in favour of the vic market. So how do we address that?

Yeah I'm 53, so what? Do you think every eagle and docker fan that are ancient like me don't still support their WAFL clubs?, do you think there are no new fans of WAFL clubs from previous generations?

The WAFL is still a thing, it's a quality league that is not that far off the top level, you talk about it like it's chump change, it's not just about you and what you want.

The thread is about how to accept the fact that the vic market dictates the landscape of the league and how to address it.

Not just player retention, fixturing issues, commentary ignorance that you talk about, those things are not what most vic fans are unhappy about, only part of their ire.

Yeah nah the WAFL is a long way off the AFL quality, otherwise more people would watch it (on TV and at the grounds). We do still televise it here.

Used to be that the WAFL was not far off from the VFL but not anymore.

How would going back to the state leagues work? Would the Eagles stay in the WAFL and the Dockers join? Some of the oldies might still support their old clubs but the vast majority would support the Eagles and Dockers.

Ditto the SANFL with Crows and Magpies.

I suppose that could change in generations, not that it'll ever happen. I'd be fine with it, just keep the salary caps in place for all leagues, and have some sort of a champion of champions play off at the end of the state league seasons.

Most WA and SA followers want to play the Pies, Bombers, etc. They just don't care as much for the lower drawing Vic clubs which I'm not saying are minnows but I mean, look at the Saints v Melbourne crowd last night. Fighting for a spot in the top four and barely draws over 30k. If it were North vying for a spot in the top four against the Dogs or whoever it'd probably be the same story. Yeah, 50k members and 100s of thousands of supporters but why the **** don't they turn up? Where are they for the big games? And if they want more prime time, ****ing earn it by drawing better crowds or performing better in the H & A season instead of whinging.

Let's face it, there's a lot of whingers, Vic and non-Vic, and it'll probably never change.

I say we just get on with it, let's get to team 19 and 20, see how that goes and maybe the game goes beyond 20 and maybe it won't.

The more non-Vic teams are added to the game, the more Vics will be annoyed it's not as Vic dominant anymore, but then there's no excuses for us interstaters to complain so it balances out. It's already close to 50-50.

 

[Papa G]

Still not sure how getting rid of the 4 smallest and least structurally important clubs is irrational, but going back to state leagues and getting rid half of the 12 biggest clubs, including the biggest club in the country is rational. What was the Bush trying to achieve by starting this thread? Especially when arguing at the same time "it's all about money". 53 is a bit young for dementia.

 

[Coolangatta]

Still not sure how getting rid of the 4 smallest and least structurally important clubs is irrational, but going back to state leagues and getting rid half of the 12 biggest clubs, including the biggest club in the country is rational. What was the Bush trying to achieve by starting this thread? Especially when arguing at the same time "it's all about money". 53 is a bit young for dementia.

The Vic's say we're a bunch of whingers but they're just as mad it's not the VFL anymore.

Even when I've suggested we could go, in the future, an American conference style model (double up Thursday night and Friday nights, five Saturday games, three Sunday, one Monday night if four day working weeks become the norm), or remain single-tier but expand to a maximum of 24 teams playing once with a top 12 finals system, they aren't happy.

I've even been told when I used to be on Vic centric AFL Reddit that they'd hate the idea of adding more non-Vic clubs to the league because they want it to remain Vic centric! Not even hiding the bias some of them. It may have started out as an expansion of the VFL but it's evolved beyond that now and will continue to as the game grows in the east and we look for a more complete geographical representation of the league.

The AFL will have to decide whether to expand or contract, and there's no guarantee they won't contract again, but it won't be interstate teams on the chopping block if they do put the squeeze on. And they can, by refusing to help smaller Vic clubs and leaving it up to them to compete with the bigger Vic clubs for financial stability and success.

 

[LoungeLizard]

The Vic's say we're a bunch of whingers but they're just as mad it's not the VFL anymore.

Even when I've suggested we could go, in the future, an American conference style model (double up Thursday night and Friday nights, five Saturday games, three Sunday, one Monday night if four day working weeks become the norm), or remain single-tier but expand to a maximum of 24 teams playing once with a top 12 finals system, they aren't happy.

I've even been told when I used to be on Vic centric AFL Reddit that they'd hate the idea of adding more non-Vic clubs to the league because they want it to remain Vic centric! Not even hiding the bias some of them. It may have started out as an expansion of the VFL but it's evolved beyond that now and will continue to as the game grows in the east and we look for a more complete geographical representation of the league.

The AFL will have to decide whether to expand or contract, and there's no guarantee they won't contract again, but it won't be interstate teams on the chopping block if they do put the squeeze on. And they can, by refusing to help smaller Vic clubs and leaving it up to them to compete with the bigger Vic clubs for financial stability and success.

This is what i've been trying to tell people.

Victorians don't really care about non-Vic sides, they would rather watch their team eg. Collingwood, play North than eg. Port.

Call that Vic bias if you want doesn't worry me.

7 and the AFL know that Vics don't care and they know where the eyes are and until the market moves it won't change.

 

[Coolangatta]

This is what i've been trying to tell people.

Victorians don't really care about non-Vic sides, they would rather watch their team eg. Collingwood, play North than eg. Port.

Call that Vic bias if you want doesn't worry me.

7 and the AFL know that Vics don't care and they know where the eyes are and until the market moves it won't change.

Hmm, I haven't gone thoroughly over the TV ratings but I'm sure you could find some Vic v non-Vic games that have drawn better numbers than some Vic v Vic games, but that might be the exception and not the rule. I'm sure the Saints/Dees game rated fairly well on TV in Victoria but the crowd wasn't particularly impressive imo for two teams who swear up and down they have lots of support.

So I don't shed a tear for lower drawing Vic clubs that aren't getting more blockbuster games. It's definitely true that Victoria is the dominant market and as such the national game reflects that. WA and SA are pretty good markets relative to population, ditto Tasmania. NT is just too small and remote, ACT is up and coming I reckon; NSW and QLD still have a lot of work to do but if crowds and ratings aren't much better in 20-30 years than they are now then yes I concede it's pointless to add third clubs to those states.

I want the AFL to make sensible expansion decisions and so far I think they've done that, though execution is a different matter. I know they ****ed over Fitzroy but were they forced to leave the game or could they themselves have done more to stay in the comp?

 

[LoungeLizard]

Hmm, I haven't gone thoroughly over the TV ratings but I'm sure you could find some Vic v non-Vic games that have drawn better numbers than some Vic v Vic games, but that might be the exception and not the rule. I'm sure the Saints/Dees game rated fairly well on TV in Victoria but the crowd wasn't particularly impressive imo for two teams who swear up and down they have lots of support.

So I don't shed a tear for lower drawing Vic clubs that aren't getting more blockbuster games. It's definitely true that Victoria is the dominant market and as such the national game reflects that. WA and SA are pretty good markets relative to population, ditto Tasmania. NT is just too small and remote, ACT is up and coming I reckon; NSW and QLD still have a lot of work to do but if crowds and ratings aren't much better in 20-30 years than they are now then yes I concede it's pointless to add third clubs to those states.

I want the AFL to make sensible expansion decisions and so far I think they've done that, though execution is a different matter. I know they ****ed over Fitzroy but were they forced to leave the game or could they themselves have done more to stay in the comp?

Take Collingwood and St.Kilda and play them in Adelaide and you will get a decent crowd.

Bring West Coast and Port to the MCG and no-one will go, that is what I am saying, they just don't care.

Of course you will get crowds/viewers in other states, but the market is here and the AFL and 7 don't want to upset that.

 

[Coolangatta]

Take Collingwood and St.Kilda and play them in Adelaide and you will get a decent crowd.

Bring West Coast and Port to the MCG and no-one will go, that is what I am saying, they just don't care.

Of course you will get crowds/viewers in other states, but the market is here and the AFL and 7 don't want to upset that.

In Gather Round, sure, but I'm not so sure in just an isolated fixture in a normal round that would happen.

If there was a Gather Round in Melbourne I bet the Eagles and Port would get a good crowd, especially if the Eagles were playing well, but I don't deny that Vic is the biggest market.

I just hope there's more expansion in the future that reflects the growth of interstate markets.

 

[Papa G]

This is what i've been trying to tell people.

Victorians don't really care about non-Vic sides, they would rather watch their team eg. Collingwood, play North than eg. Port.

Call that Vic bias if you want doesn't worry me.

7 and the AFL know that Vics don't care and they know where the eyes are and until the market moves it won't change.

Is that why the crowd was 39k at Coll v North, but 60k v Port and nearly 66k v the Crows?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Yeah nah the WAFL is a long way off the AFL quality, otherwise more people would watch it (on TV and at the grounds). We do still televise it here.

Used to be that the WAFL was not far off from the VFL but not anymore.

Well it would be if all the wa fans went and supported the WAFL, coz y'know that's where the money would go instead of the evil afl

How would going back to the state leagues work? Would the Eagles stay in the WAFL and the Dockers join? Some of the oldies might still support their old clubs but the vast majority would support the Eagles and Dockers.

Ditto the SANFL with Crows and Magpies.

See above.

Most WA and SA followers want to play the Pies, Bombers, etc.

Why is that so important? So the wa and sa fans get to play the big profile clubs but still not happy.

I say we just get on with it,

Well tell that to the like of Papa G and the literally dozens on these boards and all the salty non vics everywhere else 'it's not fair'

The more non-Vic teams are added to the game, the more Vics will be annoyed it's not as Vic dominant anymore, but then there's no excuses for us interstaters to complain so it balances out. It's already close to 50-50.

But it won't, vic makes more than half of everything including the $ than every other heartland footy state. So unless there's a huge swing in favour of non vic states as far as population goes, things ain't changin.