Discussion Promotion and relegation

Remove this Banner Ad

Sep 22, 2011
41,556
90,571
Your girlfriend's dreams
AFL Club
Essendon
Id be interested in the opinion of the history buffs as to why this has never been a part of our game.

Recognise that distance prohibits it on a national scale, but the national competition is a relatively new thing - why has it never been a part of the game in say Victoria?

It's just strange that all throughout the city and state the leagues are all "closed", there's no overarching system to bind them together and offer suitable competition for clubs who become significantly stronger or weaker over the course of time.

It's a basic feature of soccer all around the world, in most countries it's theoretically (if not practically) possible for any bush or local club to climb its way through to the elite competition.

It would appear to cause problems at all levels. Of the old VFL clubs South and Fitzroy have had to relocate / die, and others are permanently propped up because they have no hope of generating the money required to compete at the top level.

The old VFA died as it's grand old clubs did. Why no mechanism for them to be replaced naturally by strong clubs from growing areas (many of whom are now local football powerhouses)? The league could have continued and perhaps even flourished (relatively).

Even at suburban / country level, many leagues are blighted by being completely dominated by one or a few powerful clubs who simply out-resource their competitors, and then do it year after year to the point where it's anti-competitive. There's no ability for them to be promoted to a more suitable competition.

There's so many leagues and they're all closed shops.

Why did it never catch on in our game?
 
I think the only way for it to happen in the AFL would be for a dramastic change in the way everything is run.
Firstly I would think the clubs would need to be split into states, and have maybe 5Vic clubs, 2Qld and NSW, 3SA and WA clubs. then at seasons end, lowest placed club in each state is relegated with the premiers of the state competition promoted.
No National draft would take place, except for those from non competing states, with the zones coming back in as to who players play for.
Of course teams can still trade and buy players as a player playing for South Adel in the SANFL, may want to play top level so can be purchased by an AFL competing club...

but reality, given the size and variance on the competitions here, would almost be impossible. An FA cup style comp could be doable though.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I don't see why we would feel the need to copy soccer in this respect. There is promotion and relegation in the VAFA and many local comps. But it quite simply can't work at the elite level.

I don't think it could.

But this is more a historic question - why was it never a part of the game in Victoria? There's so many independent leagues.
 
I don't think it could.

But this is more a historic question - why was it never a part of the game in Victoria? There's so many independent leagues.

The old VFA had it when it split into two divisions in the early 60s I think. The team that finished last in Division 1 would be relegated to Division 2 and the premiers of Division 2 were promoted to Division1. But as various teams folded and dropped out it reverted to one division before becoming the VFL.
 
Sometime in the mid 40's the VFL and the VFA where in talks of merging and creating two divisions, the sticking point was the promotion /relegation criteria. The VFA wanted its winner an automatic promotion to the VFL while the VFL wanted a playoff between its last two placed teams and the VFA's winner/ runner up. sense they couldn't agree the proposal collapsed.

Had it gone through the Football world would have looked a whole lot different today.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/11371998
 
Last edited:
There is a promotion/relegation system in place in the South Australian Amateur Football League (SAAFL). There are about 8 divisions and the team that finished top after the minor round and the Grand final winner go up to the next division (if this is the same team then the GF loser is promoted as well) while the bottom two teams drop down. The one flaw is that the promotion is only based on the clubs A grade team, so if the A grade team gets promoted to Div 2 the clubs Reserves team plays in the Div 2 Reserves comp, even if they finished bottom of the Div 3 reserves.
 
I don't think it could.

But this is more a historic question - why was it never a part of the game in Victoria? There's so many independent leagues.
It is part of the game in Victoria, just not as part of the VFL/AFL. Considering the reasons the VFL broke away from the VFA (its problems with an expanding competition and newer clubs) it makes sense that the VFL never considered adopting a revolving door of those same abandoned clubs.
 
There is a promotion/relegation system in place in the South Australian Amateur Football League (SAAFL). There are about 8 divisions and the team that finished top after the minor round and the Grand final winner go up to the next division (if this is the same team then the GF loser is promoted as well) while the bottom two teams drop down. The one flaw is that the promotion is only based on the clubs A grade team, so if the A grade team gets promoted to Div 2 the clubs Reserves team plays in the Div 2 Reserves comp, even if they finished bottom of the Div 3 reserves.


Similar thing with the Victorian Amateurs.
 
Is it that too many teams from one geographical area would mean that relegated clubs would see their attendances plummet? There's plenty of match reports of games in the late VFA and early VFL days (and admittedly I'm only looking at one club) where poor attendances would be blamed on there being a better game at East Melbourne than was on offer at the MCG.

I know there's 13 London teams in the top four divisions of the English league, but even without cash injections from ludicrously rich foreigners there would still be a massive gap between Chelsea and Dagenham & Redbridge.

Even if you were conservative and added Bendigo, Ballarat etc.. to a two division set up rather than the VFA teams surely sides that dropped from the top flight would have played in front of paltry crowds. Look at some of the division two VFA crowds - the games were played in front of 300 people.
 
There is a promotion/relegation system in place in the South Australian Amateur Football League (SAAFL). There are about 8 divisions and the team that finished top after the minor round and the Grand final winner go up to the next division (if this is the same team then the GF loser is promoted as well) while the bottom two teams drop down. The one flaw is that the promotion is only based on the clubs A grade team, so if the A grade team gets promoted to Div 2 the clubs Reserves team plays in the Div 2 Reserves comp, even if they finished bottom of the Div 3 reserves.
Incorrect there.
It's the 2 grand finalists who go up.

I know as about 5-6 years ago (SAAFL's 99th year) Adelaide university won the minor premiership, but went out in straight sets, missing the grand final and failing to be back in Division 1 for the SAAFL's 100th year. (It was talked about as they're historically the most successful club).

And on that. Still laugh at recent years.

St Peters OS went back-to-back-to-back in 2010-12 in 3 different grades, coming from 5th each time.
Won Div 3 2010 from 5th
Won Div 2 2011 from 5th
Won Div 1 2012 from 5th.

Edit: Then in 2013, I think they lost the prelim from 5th.
 
Last edited:
I would suggest elitism and competition as the best words to describe why the VFL never considered any form of relegation.
For the longest time the VFL and VFA never even considered each other.
You could swap from one league to the other without a transfer. As shown by Ron Todd, Syd Barker etc.
The VFL would consider their worst team still significantly better than the best of the VFA, and the VFA would not be interested in taking on the worst VFL team(s) in exchange for their best team(s)
We look at it today as the AFL controlling footy and the other comps falling into line behind them.
That's only been the case since 1993
 
A few posters don't seem to have read this: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/11371998

"The League, it was stated, made a firm offer to allow the two leading VFA teams to play the two lowest VFL teams each year. If successful the Association teams would take their places in the League. This was not to come into force immediately, time being given to the Association to improve its teams and appointments. In rejecting this offer the Association sought amalgamation, with equal representation at the League table and on the ANFC."

(The same edition has an article of the future of car manufacturing in Australia after the war - we now know how that ended up.)

A sticking point also was that by this time the VFL and the VFA were two distinct codes with variant rules of play. (We can assume that the promoted VFA clubs in the 1944 proposal would have played VFL rules. The position of the replaced VFL clubs is not clear in the report.)
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Sometime in the mid 40's the VFL and the VFA where in talks of merging and creating two divisions, the sticking point was the promotion /relegation criteria. The VFA wanted its winner an automatic promotion to the VFL while the VFL wanted a playoff between its last two placed teams and the VFA's winner/ runner up. sense they couldn't agree the proposal collapsed.

Had it gone through the Football world would have looked a whole lot different today.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/11371998

How many really good players would have been satisfied playing Div 2 ?

IMHO it would be a great idea to solve the current FIXturing problem of too many teams to allow a fair draw.
 
How many really good players would have been satisfied playing Div 2 ?

IMHO it would be a great idea to solve the current FIXturing problem of too many teams to allow a fair draw.
The fixture myth. Show me the empirical evidence that the fixture has determined the outcome of the premiership.

Sure the AFL has recently pandered to the myth because the punters believe in it (people believe all sorts of nonsense without evidence), but there is no demonstrable evidence the competition was any "fairer" in the periods (1897-1924, and 1970-86) when all played each other the same number of times during the 'home and away' rounds.

Premierships during the even "fair" fixture 17 season period 1970-86 were shared between 5 of the 12 clubs competing (41.67%). In the 17 seasons 1995-2011 of an uneven "unfair" fixture, the premierships were shared between 11 of the 16 teams that competed in all the 17 seasons (68.75%). Sure there have been measures introduced to even up the competition (draft, salary cap) but it would be some task to use the data on share of flags in the two periods that the even fixture of 1970-86 somehow made the competition more "fair and balanced".

The flawed assumptions behind the "unfairness" of the fixture are that team form and performance in one season always carries to the next and that form and performance is consistent throughout a season. There is some luck to playing any opponent when they might be in a 'purple patch' or conversely depleted through injury/suspensions, but if you are playing well the fixture is of little or no relevance.

Smart football departments know that to take the ultimate prize, you have defeat whoever, wherever, whenever. Baloney about if being unfair that x team played one more match against a "strong" or "weak" team is the seeds of a loser culture. Smart clubs would never let it infect them. Decisions made without proof (assumptions) are what divide the strong from the weak and success from failure.
 
How many really good players would have been satisfied playing Div 2 ?

IMHO it would be a great idea to solve the current FIXturing problem of too many teams to allow a fair draw.

Promotion relegation wouldn't work today for a number of reasons one in which you pointed out above, but a conference system like in the U.S or Super Rugby might, it won't exactly solve the equalisation dilemma but it will disguise the gap between the top and the bottom.
The AFL want equalisation it won't work with 18 or more teams in a league format no matter what they try because of the gap even with a salary cap it is difficult your always going to have powerful and weaker teams with such a league.
Next expansion the AFL will probably bring the competition to 20 teams (providing all Victorian clubs survive which they will) best chance to split the league in to two conferences of 10 teams with the top four from each conference to make finals.

Back to the proposal in the 40's I don't think it would have survived for very long especially if the agreement was for promotion over a number of years for the VFA clubs. We still may have seen a few clubs changing between VFL and VFA it may have coursed a lot of VFA clubs to improve standards and recruit better to gain promotion quicker. Would have been interesting to see how long it would have survived, especially if it survived in to the 80's when the footy landscape was changing with more corporate support gaining momentum, television exposure and expansion interstate.
 
Last edited:
It would be interesting to have seen Williamstown play hawthorn in 1945. It would have been an interesting game. I don't think that it would have been all one sided Hawthorn's way.

I think it is a key point when talking about the concept of 'first class' football. Were the bottom VFL teams always stronger than the top VFA teams?
Certainly in more recent years..yes... but I dont believe it was always the case
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Discussion Promotion and relegation

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top