Are Victorians holding football back?

[tandino]

I'm actually wondering what this "national league alternative" that the SANFL were holding out for was going to involve?

 

[hcd199]

What is it, seriously, that motivates people to call for the culling/merging/relocating of existing teams? Tradition, history... how are they less important than new, soul-less clubs? I fail to see what the case is...

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

I don't for a second think my love for North is any more worthy than you guys and your teams.

But it happened and it sucks.

Thus wishing the same experience you went through on others is petty and mean spirited IMO.

And so much of it, especially from SA types in my experience, stems from a fairly mindless parochial Kick A Vic attitude.

Very well said mate. Couldn't have articulated it any better myself

 

[invinciBlues]

What is it, seriously, that motivates people to call for the culling/merging/relocating of existing teams? Tradition, history... how are they less important than new, soul-less clubs? I fail to see what the case is...

For the record:

I dont like the idea of merging/relocating/death.

I do however think moving a couple of teams back to VFL would benefit both the national comp and the state comp.

I don't like inventing clubs interstate or otherwise.

I do like the idea of rewarding long-standing clubs from interstate that have a proven level of success and support by elevating them to the top league.

<cue SLF's rant about Carlton>

 

[jpdixon]

Thus wishing the same experience you went through on others is petty and mean spirited IMO.

That's a pretty unsympathetic portrayal. Perhaps it's more about wanting the experience, if it had to happen, to actually be worth something by resulting in a decent national competition, rather than being stuck with the pathetic hybrid we have now.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

That's a pretty unsympathetic portrayal. Perhaps it's more about wanting the experience, if it had to happen, to actually be worth something by resulting in a decent national competition, rather than being stuck with the pathetic hybrid we have now.

This notion of a 'decent national competition' is a furphy though.

Victoria is the demographic and economic centre of the game. It's an unavoidable fact. It provides the most spectators, the most viewers, the most players. Even Vlad is on record as saying the 10 Vic teams are the economic cornerstone of the comp.

The WA teams pay their own way more than handsomely.

We're seeing now that even two SA teams requires deft and careful management.

The Sydney and Brissy sides require/have required major support. They bring in revenue yes, but that doesn't come free. Western Sydney and the Gold Coast are going to be loss leaders for a generation at least.

Of the footy heartlands, only the NT and Tassie don't have teams. Yet Tassie still gets four games a year from Hawthorn. And anyway, the geopgraphic and demographic and historical make up of the island means that a single side would be unlikely to work.

Darwin gets games and Port's intentions to play more games and establish more of a presence there is probably a suitable fit for a market that simply isn't big enough to sustain a stand alone team.

The AFL is not the Senate. Not every state deserves 'equal representation'.

As I said above, I respect the hurt that followers of clubs like Sturt and South Freo must have experienced when their clubs were effectively relegated.

Yet they now still choose to follow the AFL clubs that effectively pushed them under. That's their choice.

But there is such an element of spite and bitterness in so many wishing ill on smaller Vic clubs that has no serious economic basis and would in no way be goosd for the comp.

 

[PortBrillance]

get rid of the vics, without the PAFC..aussie rules wouldnt exist

 

[Adrian Shelton]

Fortunately for expansion's sake, "Victorians" as in the idiot masses, aren't in charge of allocating new licences. Imagine St. Albans Vampire Bats vs. the Narre Warren Commodores in the AFL grand final if some of these vocal twits had their way. I'm all for GC and GWS (as long as they don't manage to get Ablett and/or Selwood from us)

This will be my favourite team if they get in, go the mighty 'Vampire Bats'!!!!!!!

 

[Adrian Shelton]

I'm actually wondering what this "national league alternative" that the SANFL were holding out for was going to involve?

I believe this was suggested in around 1989. All the leauges were going to play their normal seasons then have a 'Superleauge' style finals over a couple of months.

 

[Constructionist]

Victorians simply don't understand mate, they don't understand the same feeling they currently have for their club we had for our WAFL or SANFL club.
Now our club is in a second tier league and we support a composite team in the AFL.
As much as I am a member and follow the Eagles with some passion they will never be in my heart as West Perth are.
Victorians don't seem to care to much about that though and I guess why should they?

So like you if teams fold, relocate or whatever I don't give a flying ****. In fact if anyone had any sense the 6 interstate teams should just invite 6 victorian teams and start their own comp.
Lets face it if the game is purely about money now which it seems it is then the interstate sides are the biggest, WCE, AC, Sydney and Brisbane and even Freo have unlimited funding and sponsors, they could lose their major sponsor tomorrow and not lose a nights sleep over it as tomorrow another will jump in.

What Victorians should do is be very thankfull that some of their second rate, second tier clubs just happened to end up in the AFL because of geography. Not because they earnt the right to be in the premier comp in the country.

The WAFL is to blame also for putting in a side into the VFL, the 4 million they paid to do so could have been spent on the WAFL and retaining players here.

Bottom line is that is the way it is now, but cry me a river over your struggling clubs. Stand up and be counted, stop relying on others or **** off.

Top post, and it's true. Victorians for the most part simply have their heads stuck in the mud on this. They cry about their teams being merged or whatever, but you offer them the solution of having their team go back to the VFL and they still are unhappy.

No one likes to see a poor club on the field, people want to see success. People see North Melbourne losing players because their facilities are poor, they are using bricks and trolleys to do their weight lifting, so you know they won't be competitive. It's not even about competitiveness on the field anyhow, they have no X factor that makes anyone care about them, which is why they are in the bottom 3 in regards to crowds.

The only reason people target clubs like North Melbourne/Melbourne/etc are because they are poor and we are sick of hearing about the tin rattling these beggars do every month of the year. It's harsh but that's the truth, take the tin rattling to the VFL where it belongs, this is a 50 million a year business they are running and they act like that. It's a joke.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

Except of course a number of North posters have expressed their sympathy for fans of SANFL and WAFL clubs on this thread.

And we are opening brand new $15m facilities in a few days.

And we've never rattled tins.

And as regards being competitive, despite being gutted by injuries, we only finished a game and a half behind Hawthorn (reigning premiers) last season.

Apart from that, good well-informed post.

 

[Constructionist]

And we've never rattled tins.

Oh yes take something like that literally, fool. Every time the footy show is on or anything of this nature there is North Melbourne on the phone line trying to get members to sign up.

And as regards being competitive, despite being gutted by injuries, we only finished a game and a half behind Hawthorn (reigning premiers) last season.

Wouldn't matter if we finish 16th, we have X factor that brings crowds.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Wouldn't matter if we finish 16th, we have X factor that brings crowds.

The same "X factor" you had back in 1996 when Hawthorn only had 12,300 members, Constructionist? Would that be the "X factor" you're referring to?

Yeah, the Hawks have never been in any kind of financial strife, have they...

 

[Constructionist]

The same "X factor" you had back in 1996 when Hawthorn only had 12,300 members, Constructionist? Would that be the "X factor" you're referring to?

No I'm talking about the X factor we have now. The past is the past, at one stage we only had 100 members. Want to bring that up too?

 

[tribey]

We're seeing now that even two SA teams requires deft and careful management.

The SA clubs also make more than enough money, it's just they're forced to subsidise the SANFL in a major way, resulting in the Crows being held back from being as big as West Coast if not bigger and Port struggling to keep its head above water in real terms.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

No I'm talking about the X factor we have now. The past is the past, at one stage we only had 100 members. Want to bring that up too?

No, but I certainly saw fit to bring up the information necessary to illustrate the hypocrisy of a Hawthorn supporter taking any kind of potshot about the financial state and support level, good or bad, or another club.

Moreover, it is just not true to suggest that the Demons have any substantial financial problems at this stage.

In fact, we have only around $1 million in remaining debt now, if that - which is less than at least 5 other clubs that I'm aware of at present.

Furthermore, we've set new membership records consecutively in the last 2 seasons, and are on track at present to break our latest record by around 3,500 members in 2010 - which would bring our membership total up as high as 35,000.

 

[Constructionist]

No, but I certainly saw fit to bring up the information necessary to illustrate the hypocrisy of a Hawthorn supporter taking any kind of potshot about the financial state and support level, good or bad, or another club.

Please, my opinion has hardly anything to do with Hawthorn, it's just facts that your team and North are among the ones on the chopping block.

Whether your club makes it out of the hole it is in is not important in the scheme of things. Because it just means another club will be down there taking your spot. It probably means something to you though as a supporter.

 

[TooFar]

The SA clubs also make more than enough money, it's just they're forced to subsidise the SANFL in a major way, resulting in the Crows being held back from being as big as West Coast if not bigger and Port struggling to keep its head above water in real terms.

That is a myth. The SANFL owns both SA licenses always have. Crows seem to manage ok with the current arrangement. Who's fault is it that Port bit of more than they can chew? Who's fault is it that you cant keep your supporters? Who's fault is it that you alienate 85% of the SA football public? Don't blame the SANFL for you own poor management.

West Coast put a lot of money back into the WAFL.

 

[tribey]

That is a myth. The SANFL owns both SA licenses always have. Crows seem to manage ok with the current arrangement.

And runs and bleeds the two clubs like cashcows to achieve their stated goal of being the second best football league on the planet [wow!].

The Crows manage ok, they could be managing great.

Who's fault is it that Port bit of more than they can chew?

If we didn't 'bite off more than we could chew' in 1990 you and the SANFL wouldn't have your beloved Crows/cashcow.

Funny how we never get a thankyou card for that.

Who's fault is it that you cant keep your supporters?

Our membership has been a rather static 32000-35000 odd since day dot. It's getting them to rock up that's the issue - a reality the Crows have also faced in recent years.

Who's fault is it that you alienate 85% of the SA football public?

85% of the SA football public that turned their backs on their suburban tribal allegiances to hop aboard the broadbased state bandwagon - a captive conglomerate of fans who had SOO every other week for 6 full seasons before Port got its go.

Don't blame the SANFL for you own poor management.

Getting 28300 to a decrepit stadium with 4 of 10 gates locked and making a $10000 matchday loss (vs. Essendon, R1 2009) is our poor management?

West Coast put a lot of money back into the WAFL.

So has and does Port Adelaide.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

Oh yes take something like that literally, fool. Every time the footy show is on or anything of this nature there is North Melbourne on the phone line trying to get members to sign up.

Of course Hawthorn have never had a membership drive. FFS.

Wouldn't matter if we finish 16th, we have X factor that brings crowds.

Where was it 5 years ago when you got 10k to a home game against Port?

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

The SA clubs also make more than enough money, it's just they're forced to subsidise the SANFL in a major way, resulting in the Crows being held back from being as big as West Coast if not bigger and Port struggling to keep its head above water in real terms.

That's what I meant by the careful management mate.

 

[tribey]

That's what I meant by the careful management mate.

It's just so frustrating.

The oft-quoted figure is that a Port home matchday provides an average $400k in revenue to the SANFL.

That's almost entirely profit, given Port pays down all stadium expenses (from the utilities, to SAPOL, to WESLO security, to the umpires and the SANFL's own redcoats). Hence if we don't make the breakeven figure, approximated at the revenue generated from 28000-30000 attendees, we write the SANFL a cheque anyway.

Then we get kicked the nuts like above for daring to question why we should pour all that money into the SANFL's coffers.

Geelong average something like 24000 down at Kardinia Park and make millions.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

Please, my opinion has hardly anything to do with Hawthorn, it's just facts that your team and North are among the ones on the chopping block.

There is no chopping block.

Demetriou is on record as saying the 10 Vic sides are the economic cornerstone of the comp, that expansion can't happen without them.

That's why the AFL expended such time and effort and money re-negotiating the stadium deals.

18 clubs are here for a generation at least.

Melbourne are almost debt free. North will be debt free within 5 years.

Both clubs are haeding - or have the potential to - into successful onfield cycles.

This isn't the 90s. There is no Oakleyesque agenda to get rid of clubs.

Open your eyes.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Well said SLF - I was going to post a similar response myself too, but I reckon you said it all there at least as well as I could mate

 

[Pj.Rj.Hj]

Quote:
West Coast put a lot of money back into the WAFL.

Quote:
So has and does Port Adelaide.

I think he meant that the Crows are not held back anymore than West Coast in what goes back to their licence holders.

I just want to thank TooFar for raising the issue of the WAFL/SANFL clubs.
If the culling of Vic teams is inevitable, history says that over time most will get over it. WC, Freo and Adelaide seem to bee doing pretty well for themselves. So I don't know if relegation to the VFL is the answer for some clubs and replace them with a composite side, but depending on success, it could take as little as 5 years to be rapped in a new club, I know i was with WC.