No Oppo Supporters General AFL discussion and other club news

[killerspud]

Interesting debate about the Melbourne teams situation

I kind of agree with both SYL and Ned - which is weird as they are in hard disagreement.

My idea is to move two Melbourne based teams to regional Victoria - let's face it so many of the AFL players come from vic country. So move one team to Ballarat and one team to Bendigo - they keep their heritage and identity and its not a massive ask for the supporter bases to go there for games. Over time those regional cities will get better and bigger stadiums built. The best thing is Geelong are then no longer a stand alone one town team in Victoria and can't try claiming all those country kids as their own.

 

[Blackhawk42]

There’s too many Melbourne teams in what is now a national comp.

I like the idea of a third WA and SA club. This will undoubtedly happen in the next 10-15 years I would bet.

I truly believe that Saints and Roos need to be removed from the comp if we are going to continue to expand into other states, the sooner the better.

I'll never really understand how people who are passionate enough about their football club to spend all day on a forum discussing them and the sport they play could want to see other clubs in the same competition folded or merged.

It's the same passion that drives the supporters and members of those other clubs.

I want nothing more than a 100 year premiership drought for Geelong and Essendon, but it doesn't mean I'd celebrate their demise as a football club with living, breathing fanbases and hundreds of years of history.


Now, if we're only talking business hypotheticals then sure, knock yourself out.
I've got my own unpopular business hypothetical.
Move one of the big 4 to Tassie, as opposed to a struggling VIC side.

They'd sell out every game down there and still retain enough members in Melbourne to maintain relevancy.

 

[grumbleguts]

I'll never really understand how people who are passionate enough about their football club to spend all day on a forum discussing them and the sport they play could want to see other clubs in the same competition folded or merged.

It's the same passion that drives the supporters and members of those other clubs.

I want nothing more than a 100 year premiership drought for Geelong and Essendon, but it doesn't mean I'd celebrate their demise as a football club with living, breathing fanbases and hundreds of years of history.


Now, if we're only talking business hypotheticals then sure, knock yourself out.
I've got my own unpopular business hypothetical.
Move one of the big 4 to Tassie, as opposed to a struggling VIC side.

They'd sell out every game down there and still retain enough members in Melbourne to maintain relevancy.

I would see Essendon fold in an instant and roast my marshmallows on the coals. They should have been kicked out as soon as their deception was discovered.

 

[Mercy Seat]

On the topic of a 3rd team in SA and WA - which I have seen suggested in the past also, exactly how much appetite is there for this? Genuinely asking - are there significant portions of supporters of Aussie Rules who feel zero loyalty to both the incumbent teams in the state that there would be sufficient members to support new sides?

SA no, WA there’s been a bit of chatter about them getting the 20th licence to round it out. State Government may have floated it.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Based on what metric? The league has no issues supporting every existing club including the Giants and Suns who have substantially less members, crowds, TV ratings and reason to exist than every single Melbourne club. Clubs with over 100 years of history shouldn't have to exit the league just because the AFL was so hellbent on putting teams in rugby league heartlands where the game was never going to take hold. With the population here only forecast to increase substantially compared to capitals like Adelaide and Perth I don't buy the argument that there are too many teams here. The population here is forecast to be 8,000,000 by 2050. Supporting 9 teams won't be an issue.

Based on the fact that we have too many Melbourne clubs on the AFL teat.

 

[Dragz]

I would see Essendon fold in an instant and roast my marshmallows on the coals. They should have been kicked out as soon as their deception was discovered.

pft, i wouldn't risk contaminating my marshmallows to be honest...

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

I'll never really understand how people who are passionate enough about their football club to spend all day on a forum discussing them and the sport they play could want to see other clubs in the same competition folded or merged.

It's the same passion that drives the supporters and members of those other clubs.

We have clubs in Melbourne that cannot stand on their own two feet.

Couldn’t give a toss how passionate their 35k members are. We are watching as the divide between the haves and the have nots gets even wider than it’s ever been, and there’s no fix for those languishing. They will just continue to suck money from the AFL coffers for the next decade.

Kill them off.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Based on the fact that we have too many Melbourne clubs on the AFL teat.

This is the problem with using financial metrics though - in 1996 people used similar metrics to argue away our existence. There’s zero guarantee that we continue to be profitable and financially secure, absolutely anything can happen and we could require the assistance and in your assessment be no longer worthy of being in Melbourne or potentially the league. The funding model the AFL now has ensures all clubs are viable - so this Oakleyist, 90s economical rationalism view of the sporting landscape is thankfully irrelevant.

 

[Blackhawk42]

We have clubs in Melbourne that cannot stand on their own two feet.

Couldn’t give a toss how passionate their 35k members are. We are watching as the divide between the haves and the have nots gets even wider than it’s ever been, and there’s no fix for those languishing. They will just continue to suck money from the AFL coffers for the next decade.

Kill them off.

Two of the richest clubs in the land find themselves entrenched in the bottom 4 (Richmond and West Coast), without much immediate hope anywhere on the horizon.

Are you referring to an on field divide or a financial divide?

 

[Ned Ryerson]

We have clubs in Melbourne that cannot stand on their own two feet.

Couldn’t give a toss how passionate their 35k members are. We are watching as the divide between the haves and the have nots gets even wider than it’s ever been, and there’s no fix for those languishing. They will just continue to suck money from the AFL coffers for the next decade.

Kill them off.

This is us in 1996. Without the benefit of knowing what happens from 1997 onwards you are essentially saying you should have voted for the merger.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Two of the richest clubs in the land find themselves entrenched in the bottom 4 (Richmond and West Coast), without much immediate hope anywhere on the horizon.

Are you referring to an on field divide or a financial divide?

Mate, if you’re going to make an argument at least read what I’ve written.

It’s quite clear that I’m talking about the financial divide.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

This is us in 1996. Without the benefit of knowing what happens from 1997 onwards you are essentially saying you should have voted for the merger.

No I’m saying that the majority of clubs have got their shit in a pile, and decades later are stronger than they’ve ever been.

Those who still haven’t, likely never will.

 

[grumbleguts]

pft, i wouldn't risk contaminating my marshmallows to be honest...

I wasn't going to eat them.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

This is the problem with using financial metrics though - in 1996 people used similar metrics to argue away our existence. There’s zero guarantee that we continue to be profitable and financially secure, absolutely anything can happen and we could require the assistance and in your assessment be no longer worthy of being in Melbourne or potentially the league. The funding model the AFL now has ensures all clubs are viable - so this Oakleyist, 90s economical rationalism view of the sporting landscape is thankfully irrelevant.

Exactly, there is no guarantee, so while the league has so many Melbourne based clubs and a handful that can barely stand on their own two feet I’d like the AFL to bite the bullet now and kill off the weaklings so that the a club like ours might be able to endure some hardship in the future without the topic of conversation being that we need less Melbourne clubs, because we’d have already taken care of that.

 

[QuietB]

Two of the richest clubs in the land find themselves entrenched in the bottom 4 (Richmond and West Coast), without much immediate hope anywhere on the horizon.

Are you referring to an on field divide or a financial divide?

They did win 4 of the last 7 premierships - Richmond and West Coast are fine

 

[Ned Ryerson]

No I’m saying that the majority of clubs have got their s**t in a pile, and decades later are stronger than they’ve ever been.

Those who still haven’t, likely never will.

Why won’t they? Again, you could have easily made this argument about us in 1996 and said operation payback will be a failure and we will continue to be an economic basket case so we may as well pack it in. Things change.

When the three biggest draining clubs on the AFLs resources are Brisbane, Gold Coast and GWS it’s really weird that people start with Melbourne clubs for hypothetical consolidation of the league.

Having been through the Super League debacle and seeing up close what they does to a sporting competition I’m fairly glad it won’t happen with the AFL. The NRL is a empty league with next to **** all history and tradition because they ripped the soul out of the game due to misguided contraction. All it did was leave wounds in the game that still haven’t healed.

Not to mention the finances of the game won’t continue to be as rosy if you kill off clubs, dilute the TV rights arrangements and other revenue from a broader league and end up alienating hundreds of thousands of fans and drive them to other leagues - which is exactly what the ARL/Super League did by driving away fans to both the Bears/Lions and Swans around that time.

Much like dialup modems - these ideas belong in the 90s and shouldn’t be revisited.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Why won’t they? Again, you could have easily made this argument about us in 1996 and said operation payback will be a failure and we will continue to be an economic basket case so we may as well pack it in. Things change.

When the three biggest draining clubs on the AFLs resources are Brisbane, Gold Coast and GWS it’s really weird that people start with Melbourne clubs for hypothetical consolidation of the league.

Having been through the Super League debacle and seeing up close what they does to a sporting competition I’m fairly glad it won’t happen with the AFL. The NRL is a empty league with next to heck all history and tradition because they ripped the soul out of the game due to misguided contraction. All it did was leave wounds in the game that still haven’t healed.

Not to mention the finances of the game won’t continue to be as rosy if you kill of clubs, dilute the TV rights arrangements and other revenue from a broader league and end up alienating hundreds of thousands of fans and drive them to other leagues - which is exactly what the ARL/Super League did by driving away fans to both the Bears/Lions and Swans around that time.

Much like dialup modems - these ideas belong in the 90s and shouldn’t be revisited.

As has been posted earlier in the thread both Saints and Roos are from bygone eras.

North stand for nothing, in a very small region of the city with little to no opportunity to grow. They’ve played home games in pretty much every state, and will soon be booted from Tassie back to marvel.

Saints have been a financial black hole for decades. They have zero success to call upon for young adult members with disposable income to grow their numbers.

Of course both clubs could improve off field, but as it stands they are both being propped up as much as the Suns.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Of course both clubs could improve off field, but as it stands they are both being propped up as much as the Suns.

They aren’t though. The Suns cost the league substantially more, with less ROI.

If we run the league on the basis of keeping the clubs that are financially viable on their own - it would be a 9 team league, there’d be zero teams in NSW, QLD and the next TV rights deal would resemble the A-Leagues. The current model works. And if you don’t enjoy laughing at the Aints and Norf year on year then I don’t know what to say.

 

[Blackhawk42]

Mate, if you’re going to make an argument at least read what I’ve written.

It’s quite clear that I’m talking about the financial divide.

No argument at all. Seeking clarification.

Considering the Kangaroos have eradicated their debt and St.Kilda have the longest premiership drought I genuinely couldn't tell if you meant from a success point of view or a financial point of view. That does get lost quote often when these discussion arise all over Bigfooty.

Others have put forth the views I share far more eloquently than I, so I'm happy to leave it there.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

They aren’t though. The Suns cost the league substantially more, with less ROI.

If we run the league on the basis of keeping the clubs that are financially viable on their own - it would be a 9 team league, there’d be zero teams in NSW, QLD and the next TV rights deal would resemble the A-Leagues. The current model works. And if you don’t enjoy laughing at the Aints and Norf year on year then I don’t know what to say.

I’d rather they no longer existed, and go back to laughing at the Bombres.

 

[grumbleguts]

They did win 4 of the last 7 premierships - Richmond and West Coast are fine

Now that Dustin is on the way out, Richmond are going to have to get used to having high fend offs paid against them.

 

[Sixpence]

There's a St Kilda in Adelaide, could easily move and still keep their entire name and brand.

 

[MatteeG]

There's a St Kilda in Adelaide, could easily move and still keep their entire name and brand.

There's also a Richmond and a Hawthorn...and a Fitzroy

 

[MasterSamurai]

By 2050 the AFL should look to widen the game to look to dominate the sporting market outside of Victoria more. 24 clubs, 14 in the first league and 10 in the second league and have relegation and promotion for three to four clubs each year , then the excitement and joy of every game meaning something will go through the roof. Most traditionalists will be against it but no one will bat an eye lid once it gets off the ground.
Obviously, there's less than 10% chance of it happening unfortunately.

 

[CHUBBSS]

By 2050 the AFL should look to widen the game to look to dominate the sporting market outside of Victoria more. 24 clubs, 14 in the first league and 10 in the second league and have relegation and promotion for three to four clubs each year , then the excitement and joy of every game meaning something will go through the roof. Most traditionalists will be against it but no one will bat an eye lid once it gets off the ground.
Obviously, there's less than 10% chance of it happening unfortunately.

3 in s.a, 3 in w.a, one in tassie and one in nt - will be ad revenue heaven and the game will be ridiculously fast by then. Overseas rating will grow as the AFL gets taken over by people that actually understand content.

(I can get better replays from phone cams on the boundary then their crappy shots now)

It’s definitely possible but the talent pathways need to be funded more. Smaller niche stadiums and grounds are the key.