Financial Crisis : At last 2 Melbourne teams fold?

[RUNVS]

SO successful financial powerhouses should relocate while debt ridden Victorian - Carlton, Richmond, and non Victorian clubs - Sydney Swans, Port Adelaide Power and tinpot rabbles like the 'West Sydney Wolves' and 'Gold Coast Gladiators' should be granted licenses

The old NRL trick of alienating fans by merging/relocating the biggest/bedrock clubs in the competition...makes perfect sense

IMO clubs that don't have 40,000 ticketed members should be questioned, you agree?

Can you see the Sydney Swans, Brisbane Lions, 'West Sydney Wolves' or 'Gold Coast Gladiators' all having 40,000 members collectively in you're lifetime...I sure as hell can't

Pot kettle black from a tinpot club that cant conjure 15,000 Sydney based members in a city of some 5,000,000

The Sydney Swans arent dept ridden. Infact the Swans are in a better financial situation than alot of other clubs at the moment.

If Victoria is only going to have 7 teams then moving the Hawks to Tasmania makes sense as you already have a business relationship with the Tasmanian government.

 

[Memories]

After all, we can't have 'franchise' clubs 'sponging' of the AFL like those Victorian clubs, can we?

We can provided there is a future there. It's worth having an AFL groundswell in the NT even if they lose money compared to having a team in melbourne lose money. It's all about getting the most people involved in the game, which over time will trickle to every club.

That said if the team is REALLY going to struggle then don't do it, if it can't even make 50% of it's required revenue then it's pointless. But if it's 80-90% like the current Melbourne clubs then yes.

 

[CF]

Melbourne to Tassie for the Tasmanian Devils

errr sorry but couldn't resist.

I am amazed firstly at the OP Then the suggestion of the bottom 8 playing a round robin during the finals series. I recall that end of season clashes between bottom 8 sides generally attract little interest as far as crowds go. So their would be little financial reward for this idea. Crowds of 10,000 die hard's coming to watch 2 teams just going through the motions....errrrr NO THANKS!

 

[Hawkk]

We can provided there is a future there. It's worth having an AFL groundswell in the NT even if they lose money compared to having a team in melbourne lose money. It's all about getting the most people involved in the game, which over time will trickle to every club.

That said if the team is REALLY going to struggle then don't do it, if it can't even make 50% of it's required revenue then it's pointless. But if it's 80-90% like the current Melbourne clubs then yes.

Is there more of a future for Port Adelaide in Adelaide, Tasmania in Tasmania (with slow population growth) or the Northern Territory then there is for Victorian clubs, located in Australia's fastest growing city

 

[Memories]

If Victoria is only going to have 7 teams then moving the Hawks to Tasmania makes sense as you already have a business relationship with the Tasmanian government.

The Tasmanians barely support the hawks, they do to some extent just to get some games over here. However when the hawks won the flag there was only a few houses that I saw that put the "hawks" banners out. Conversely seeing the wins in Perth and Adelaide and the effects they had on the people there was vastly different (speaking from personal experience here).

Tassies will embrace their own team very quickly and very quickly forget about the hawks. It's ridiculous to get rid of the mass of Hawks supporters in Victoria.

 

[Butane]

If Victoria is only going to have 7 teams then moving the Hawks to Tasmania makes sense as you already have a business relationship with the Tasmanian government.

But only at the moment, there's nothing saying that in 10 years Hawthorn's major sponsor will still be Tasmania.

Plus there are a lot of people in Tassie that support the 15 other clubs. Sure Tassie would make it if they all get behind the same club like in Geelong but if their loyalties are divided then moving an existing club will already alienate at least 50% of the football loving tasmanians.

IMO the only way a Tassie team will work is if they form their own team. It will convince a lot more locals to switch to their team because it's 100% theirs.

 

[ManWithNoName]

Well you see, generally when problems like the one you just mentioned arise problem solvers like myself and other intelligent people can think up solutions. You, well you seem to say 'give up'. How about increasing squad sizes? There have been numerous suggestions on this topic. How about increasing bench sizes to help reduce injuries?

As a passionate football supporter I want more football in the year, not less or the same. What I have outlined solves every main issue when it comes to extending the season, any minor issue is easily solved with more thought. Don't bring your negative, conservative attitude to this discussion, anyone over 70 shouldn't really be having thoughts on things.

I wouldn't mind more football. But I'd rather football of higher quality. Increasing squad sizes dilutes the talent pool. Even if you did increase the squad size each time would still have a core 22 that would be expected to play 30 games a year.

 

[krusden]

South Australia should always have 2 teams as it can easily support them. Whether that's Port Adelaide or some new club is hardly relevant in the scheme of things. Hopefully port can stick around they haven't been as much a blight on the league compared to the Melbourne teams.

That takes the cake. Absolutely.
So, if port are underperforming then get rid of them. How do you think the SA public at large would take that? You seem to have all the answers - so answer that.

 

[Memories]

Is there more of a future for Port Adelaide in Adelaide, Tasmania in Tasmania (with slow population growth) or the Northern Territory then there is for Victorian clubs, located in Australia's fastest growing city

Yes, simply because when victoria population increases it is shared out by 10 clubs. So each 1 percent growth in Victoria is actually only 0.1% growth to any one team.

South Australia only needs to grow faster than 1/5th of Victoria's growth for it to be more viable.

Tasmania only needs to grow faster than 1/10th of Victoria.

Both states grow faster when thinking in such terms than Victoria. Much faster.

 

[CF]

Population in Darwin area is around 60,000 people with 30,000 of them indigenous people and most of those are as poor as hell and would never spend over $200 on a membership. The total population of the NT is like just barely 180,000 people and the majority of them are indigenous people on welfare. There is no way an AFL team could survive up there. A combined NT/QLD team is more a goer than that.

 

[Hawkk]

The Sydney Swans arent dept ridden. Infact the Swans are in a better financial situation than alot of other clubs at the moment.

My mistake, I mistoke you're constant struggle for market penetration in the Sydney market and lackluster crowds and membership for struggling finances.

If Victoria is only going to have 7 teams then moving the Hawks to Tasmania makes sense as you already have a business relationship with the Tasmanian government.

Not really, the relationship is stipulated based on the exposure the Tasmania gets on the mainland, particularly Melbourne, as a result of the deal

Relocating the 3rd biggest Victorian club (member wise) for the sake of it doesnt solve anything but potentially alienating a large chunk of its members.

Make no mistake, relocation/merger does alienate fans. The Brisbane Lions Melbourne based membership today is smaller then the Lions membership in the mid 1990's, which based on the growth in membership since would have been up around the 20,000 mark had the Lions remained as a standalone club as it is, its around 4-5,000.

For this reason you'll never get a rapid NRL type contraction in the number of Victorian clubs, it just gives a free hit for other codes like it did for the Swans in Sydney during the 1990's

 

[Memories]

I wouldn't mind more football. But I'd rather football of higher quality. Increasing squad sizes dilutes the talent pool. Even if you did increase the squad size each time would still have a core 22 that would be expected to play 30 games a year.

No, current practices are diluting the talent pool by throwing away talented 28/29/30yos simply because there is no room for them on a "youth orientated lists". Soon as lists grow the ability to keep more older guys and stop them retiring and/or playing in the WAFL/SANFL/VFL increases.

There are a lot of talented guys running around in those sub leagues that should be in the AFL but aren't simply due to being 25 instead of 18.

 

[Wallaby]

Yeah, if the NT isn't viable (they haven't really looked too hard at it, it has roughly the same population as tassie) then what you have said would be fine. The thing the vics don't seem to understand is having fewer teams in the the state will make all of the teams that stay a lot more successful.

If it came to propping up a struggling NT team or a struggling VIC team I'd prefer the NT team though.

Population of NT - about 215,000. Darwin 120,000
Population of Tassie - about 500,000. Hobart 210,00.

PLus NT has no major industry other than Tourism. No major local sponsors. Tassie can always get Gunns in.

If you reckon that Melbourne cannot support 10 teams with a population of 3,800,000 (5,200,000 in vic) plus many major companies HQs, how the hell does the NT work with barely 1/20th of the population?

 

[jackmac7]

Melbourne to Tassie for the Tasmanian Devils

errr sorry but couldn't resist.

I am amazed firstly at the OP Then the suggestion of the bottom 8 playing a round robin during the finals series. I recall that end of season clashes between bottom 8 sides generally attract little interest as far as crowds go. So their would be little financial reward for this idea. Crowds of 10,000 die hard's coming to watch 2 teams just going through the motions....errrrr NO THANKS!

Last time I checked Tassie didnt even want the premiership hawks as a permanent Tassie team let alone they be handed a struggling team by the name of Melbourne representing Tassie full time.

Tassie want their own team and anything else the AFL try to give them will be rejected by the Tassie public. It would be a horrible death for a Vic team to go through down there.

 

[RUNVS]

Here is what i think in regards to teams in Victoria.

Safe
Collingwood Magpies
Carlton Blues
Richmond Tigers
Essendon Bombers
Geelong Cats

Teams which should consider mergers/relocations
Western Bulldogs
St Kilda Saints
Hawthorn Hawks

Teams which should merge/relocate immediately
North Melbourne Kangaroos
Melbourne Demons

 

[Memories]

Population in Darwin area is around 60,000 people with 30,000 of them indigenous people and most of those are as poor as hell and would never spend over $200 on a membership. The total population of the NT is like just barely 180,000 people and the majority of them are indigenous people on welfare. There is no way an AFL team could survive up there. A combined NT/QLD team is more a goer than that.

It's more like 220K, but yes. For some reason I had confused their population levels to be around 400K. I'd still like to see if it's viable having a team there or not, but it's probably pointless unless there is a lot of future growth there.

So scrap the NT part in my idea and have 7 vic teams as the Sydney supporter pointed out.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

Ah, memories. "Godly hatchet" is a phrase I think we should hear more of.

You want to decide how many clubs, where they should be based and now many games they should play - and openly believe it doesn't matter what the clubs are. I think you've come to the wrong place with your idea - for all our differences of opinion, pretty much everyone here is here because they are passionate about their club.

 

[Memories]

Population of NT - about 215,000. Darwin 120,000
Population of Tassie - about about 500,000. Hobart 210,00.

PLus NT has no major industry other than Tourism. No major local sponsors. Tassie can always get Gunns in.

If you reckon that Melbourne cannot support 10 teams with a population of 3,800,000 (5,200,000 in vic) plus many major companies HQs, how the hell does the NT work with barely 1/20th of the population?

Yeah I got that wrong, I updated the original post to reflect that. 7 Vic teams instead of 6.

 

[jackmac7]

I think there are only a couple of places in Australia you can relocate a VIC team-

NT
North QLD

GC, Sydney, A.C.T and Tas would reject a VIC team as their own.

But that is years away.....

 

[GameOver]

Some people with stupid ideas out there. I agree that over the long term in todays corporate culture, there has to be some Melbourne clubs that get cut at some stage or relocated.

Tassie won't get everything their own way. Starting a team from scratch is hard work and not easy to get enough corporate $ to run the club successfully. An existing club that will continue with Melbourne based support can help the membership $ as well as merchandising and everything else.

NT = no chance. No $$, no stadium, no support of significant $ value. Would be similar to Southport where 100,000 members = $100,000. Giving away free tickets doesn't count as revenue.

 

[Golen Swans]

You crazy bloke. What if your team was the chicken with his clucker on the block to be chopped. Would you be so helpful with afl solution for fixing the crisis if you team was to be extincted.

good point

 

[krusden]

Last time I checked Tassie didnt even want the premiership hawks as a permanent Tassie team let alone they be handed a struggling team by the name of Melbourne representing Tassie full time.

Tassie want their own team and anything else the AFL try to give them will be rejected by the Tassie public. It would be a horrible death for a Vic team to go through down there.

True jackmac7 - a relocated victorian team would still have the problem that the whole state will not get behind them and have their noses put out of joint by being considered unworthy of having their own team.

 

[Mario the Lothario]

How does getting rid of a minimum of 50,000 members and associated supporters achieve anything?

Besides, if any clubs would go they would most likely be from the states soaking up all the development dollars such as Queensland and New South Wales.

10 Victorian clubs here to stay: AFL

AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou has declared his support for 10 clubs in Victoria and reminded all 16 clubs that the Victorian teams have been subsidising the competition for years.


On the eve of the first all-Victorian grand final since 2000, Demetriou has pointed out that the most recent $750 million broadcast rights deal was underpinned by the massive interest in the game generated from Victoria.


Demetriou, who has pledged to attract a fairer deal for all the MCG and Telstra Dome home teams, also reminded the wealthier and non-Victorian clubs that the annual AFL special assistance fund of $6 million ploughed into poorer Melbourne teams was a small price to pay.


Demetriou's stand took place at Monday's meeting of the 16 club presidents, at which the AFL revealed its strategy to remove the additional special distribution (ASD) to poorer clubs such as Melbourne, North Melbourne and the Western Bulldogs and replace it with fairer stadium deals.


But the AFL chief executive and his commission moved to quash any disquiet about clubs surviving on welfare by pointing out that the traditional AFL states Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia provided the interest that generated the richest broadcast deal in Australian sport.


While the next commission meeting, scheduled for next month, was initially expected to reach a decision on ASD funding beyond 2009, the AFL now plans to push the MCG and Telstra Dome to lower the costs of their prohibitive ground agreements with a view to allowing the clubs to survive independently.


"It was terrific news for the clubs, I must say," Geelong president Frank Costa said last night. "We were all very encouraged by the AFL's viewpoint.


"I know how hard clubs like the Western Bulldogs work and how innovative some of their ideas are but when they can't make money out of a 30,000 crowd at Telstra Dome and we can make good money out of a 24,000 crowd at the ground we are lucky enough to own, then the equalisation policy needs to be improved."


The MCG, which hosted its agreed minimum 45 games in 2008, will finish the season with total attendances of some 2.85 million but has a contractual minimum attendance agreement of 1.7 million. The MCG has managed to significantly reduce its debt on the back of its big AFL attendances.


The AFL has continued to float the possibility of building another stadium to add weaponry to its bargaining position but in the first instance will also point out to both Melbourne stadium bosses, Stephen Gough and Ian Collins, that the extra games emanating from a nine-team competition will not be played at grounds that charge AFL clubs more than any other football code in the country.


Monday's meeting also left club presidents in no doubt regarding the AFL's push into Western Sydney.


Although Demetriou and his board did not back away from the daunting challenges posed by the 2012 launch of the 18th club, the AFL insisted that poor Sydney crowds and the Swans' struggle in Sydney this year had not weakened its resolve.

 

[dutchy12]

Seriously I don't know why ppl bother posting this dribble. It actually makes MFC and NMFC supporters laugh. None of you put any thought into your posts. Take or example this post by the highly intelligent RANVS.

"Safe
Collingwood Magpies
Carlton Blues
Richmond Tigers
Essendon Bombers
Geelong Cats

Teams which should consider mergers/relocations
Western Bulldogs
St Kilda Saints
Hawthorn Hawks

Teams which should merge/relocate immediately
North Melbourne Kangaroos
Melbourne Demons"

Lol like this has got to be one of the most inane and stupid posts ever.

 

[Mario the Lothario]

True jackmac7 - a relocated victorian team would still have the problem that the whole state will not get behind them and have their noses put out of joint by being considered unworthy of having their own team.

Good point. You could also factor in that a majority of original fans from the Victorian club in question would cease to support a new relocated entity.

Relocations just don't work. It cost a fiortune over many decades to get the Swans to a break even point and I still wouldn't state that they are out of the woods. In a financial crisis, the last thing you would want to do is take on the added cost of propping up a new entity that has even less public support than the entity would have if it was left alone in the first place.