The Cut the Teams/Too Many Teams in Victoria thread

[Exe Gesis]

Alternative Melbourne region-based merging...

Demons stay.
Cats stay.
Blues and Roos merge.
Bombers and Bulldogs merge.
Hawks and Saints merge.
Magpies and Tigers merge.

That's now a 14 team AFL comp.

 

[Pessimistic]

So Lets look at the mooted reduction from 18 to 12 clubs

Fairly neat maths becaus that means of all the players on field this round, 12 remain and the other six go to the bench and emergencies. The existing bench go to state leagues

What does that mean ? One thing would be that theres far fewer opportunities for youngsters not sure what else, but for mine those players now are rotating through the firsts and seconds anyway

 

[Colonial]

Keep Giants in Western Sydney and relocate Bulldogs to Canberra.
Boot the Suns out and relocate Kangaroos to Gold Coast. Or, merge Suns/Kangaroos a la Bears/Lions.
Relocate Saints to Tasmania -- who would play half-half in Hobart and Launceston.
Merge Demons and Blues....Melbourne Blues. Retain the Carlton jumper and colors. Or Blues take over the Dees. Same diff.

That's down to 16, so far.

I said merge not takeover.

 

[FootyJunkie]

Last in, first out.

you would get this

maybe have the bottom 6 Vic clubs in the AFL drop down to the current VFL in a promotion/relegation set up, lowest finishing Vic side in the AFL gets replaced by the VFL premier each season

 

[Pessimistic]

you would get this

maybe have the bottom 6 Vic clubs in the AFL drop down to the current VFL in a promotion/relegation set up, lowest finishing Vic side in the AFL gets replaced by the VFL premier each season

Its very revealing this would only apply to vic clubs very revealing

 

[FootyJunkie]

Its very revealing this would only apply to vic clubs very revealing

too many Vic clubs for a national comp?

 

[pinot]

This Swans-Suns game is yet another perfect example of many examples of why there are far too many teams in the AFL. There is not enough pro-level talent for 18 teams. And when a few injuries occur, you have a whole bunch of mediocre players across the league in a variety of teams.

The AFL should strive NFL-like in having just so many teams that even a lot of good players get filtered out of the pros, having to play in the state leagues instead. The NFL is so difficult to crack, filtering out so many even excellent athletes, and every year more and more influx of only the best from college make it in the NFL.

Not sure the exact number of teams, but if you had say, 12-14 teams, you'd then get that "NFL-like" dynamic.

Hypothetically, name the best 18 players at every position to fill 12 teams. And post a list of players who'd miss out, and then you could assess the right balance, the right number of teams.

The last 4 or so years have steadily increased that perception. So many games are just terrible spectacles due to the difference in talent levels. The thinning out of talent at the have-nots. More and more have-nots too.

How about introducing four more teams. One from Adelaide, One from WA, One from Tasmania and One from Darwin and have a two tier competition with 10 teams each playing each other twice.. having a promotion and relegation competition.

AFL - Premier - 10 clubs play each other twice (bottom four clubs are relegated)
AFL - League - 10 clubs play each other twice (top four clubs are promoted)

All clubs should have academies where they can develop players. Increase lists because the next Barlow, Tuohy, etc don't come through traditional systems.

Just a thought

 

[Pessimistic]

Actually, I reckon the AFL will be privatly concerned that the nsw and qld derbies are not catching fans attention.

But surely the problem is obvious and wont be solved by culling teams in victoria ? Its not as if northern teams have been starved of talent opportunities. In fact the opposite is the case

 

[Exe Gesis]

Actually, I reckon the AFL will be privatly concerned that the nsw and qld derbies are not catching fans attention.

But surely the problem is obvious and wont be solved by culling teams in victoria ? Its not as if northern teams have been starved of talent opportunities. In fact the opposite is the case

Unfortunately, tho they don't "deserve" to have teams, GC and GWS have to be persisted with 'bigger picture'. But THAT two-team expansion HAS created a further drain on Vic teams and will ultimately cause 2+ Vic teams to die out. In a way, the AFL is already doing a process of culling.

Obviously, the answer, if we take our team bias away, is that there are too many Vic teams anyway. Not in the sense of crowds and memberships, but in the sense of National Comp. GWS, GC, even Sydney and Brisbane....they're not heartlands, small memberships, the fan money that pumps the AFL is coming from WA, SA and VIC. However, like I've said many times before....if WA and SA can only have two teams and not suffer fan departure, in fact growing more now than when the SANFL/WAFL were endangered by the creation of WCE, AC, etc.....then VICs will also continue to embrace the AFL itself even if they lost a bunch of teams thru merger or outright being relegated to the VFL and all new franchises with mickey mouse names like East Melbourne Knights were created that had no affiliation or previous history, just a totally new franchise. It's so ingrained in the Melbourne psyche, AR, that they'll continue to support the AFL product, find a new franchise team to start rooting for just like WA'ns had to embrace the Eagles or Dockers.

Personally....I'd rather see all Vic teams retain their history, moved down to the VFL, and say 2 new Melbourne-based teams created + a new unaffiliated Geelong.

 

[Pessimistic]

Unfortunately, tho they don't "deserve" to have teams, GC and GWS have to be persisted with 'bigger picture'. But THAT two-team expansion HAS created a further drain on Vic teams and will ultimately cause 2+ Vic teams to die out. In a way, the AFL is already doing a process of culling.

Obviously, the answer, if we take our team bias away, is that there are too many Vic teams anyway. Not in the sense of crowds and memberships, but in the sense of National Comp. GWS, GC, even Sydney and Brisbane....they're not heartlands, small memberships, the fan money that pumps the AFL is coming from WA, SA and VIC. However, like I've said many times before....if WA and SA can only have two teams and not suffer fan departure, in fact growing more now than when the SANFL/WAFL were endangered by the creation of WCE, AC, etc.....then VICs will also continue to embrace the AFL itself even if they lost a bunch of teams thru merger or outright being relegated to the VFL and all new franchises with mickey mouse names like East Melbourne Knights were created that had no affiliation or previous history, just a totally new franchise. It's so ingrained in the Melbourne psyche, AR, that they'll continue to support the AFL product, find a new franchise team to start rooting for just like WA'ns had to embrace the Eagles or Dockers.

Personally....I'd rather see all Vic teams retain their history, moved down to the VFL, and say 2 new Melbourne-based teams created + a new unaffiliated Geelong.

Two vic based teams would thrash the rest so often the rest wouldsoon be all running to the teacher

Think hawthorn and geelong without the inconvenience of having to draft and develp talent

 

[FootyJunkie]

Personally....I'd rather see all Vic teams retain their history, moved down to the VFL, and say 2 new Melbourne-based teams created + a new unaffiliated Geelong.

Melbourne Magpies

 

[Exe Gesis]

Melbourne Magpies

No. Totally new franchise. No affiliation. Has to be mickey mouse names.

New Geelong entity -- something like Kardinia Knights (or just Geelong Knights).
New Melbourne-based teams -- something like Melbourne Rangers and Frankston Pirates (or whatever, only a name to distinguish tho based at Etihad say).

 

[Demonic Ascent]

That's the $64 question. I don't know the answer. Everyone will have suggestions. That part of "who to cull" is a slippery-slope and heated debate. But I just know there are 6 too many teams.

The AFL will never go back to 6 games a weekend.

Another approach could be reducing the number of players on the field to 12 or 14 which could help reduce team lists and therefore the overall number of players in the league.

 

[FootyJunkie]

No. Totally new franchise. No affiliation. Has to be mickey mouse names.

I know, but Collingwood upgrading to the "Melbourne Magpies" have enough support (as well as hate) to make it viable.

 

[Exe Gesis]

I know, but Collingwood upgrading to the "Melbourne Magpies" have enough support (as well as hate) to make it viable.

While Collingwood are upgrading to that, however, the Dees are downgrading in the process

 

[telsor]

It would also require the Melbourne clubs to be willing to vote each other out of the competition, since the AFL cant unilaterally decide that. Theres also the fact that the AFL would have a hard time pulling a fitzroy scenario again. Further the AFL cant get away from the MCG per se, its contract is for another 27 years.



I damn near wet myself reading this. You are aware that GWS and Gold Coast funding comes in two parts - the AFLs standard distributions and future fund payments - which as you correctly point out are on par with other clubs. What you've missed is the additional funds provided to GWS and Gold Coast through the separate New Markets budget (Shown in the AFL Annual Report as being 9.387 million for 2014)

Page 22 of the GWS Annual Report says



AFL and Government grants accounted for over $23.5 million of a total $32 million revenue. GWS are nowhere NEAR viable at this point.

its worth noting that according to page 17 of Gold Coasts annual Report it recieved $16,506,277 in afl revenue. This isnt too bad compared to the Dogs $14,323,873 as reported in the AFL Annual Report.

Thank you for saving me the trouble.

The other side of it is AFL revenue.
TV rights (etc) for the northern states would be pretty low in the scheme of things considering that they usually get figures in the mid double digits (and the broadcasters are required to show them).

 

[The_Wookie]

What about a relegation/promotion system? Cut the number of teams to 14 or 16, relegating the worst performing teams to their respective state leagues. The problem with that, though, is that the relegated AFL teams would destroy their opposition in the state league. The relegated club could be weakened if their best performing players joined another AFL club, but that'd only widen the gap between the strongest teams and weakest teams and make it even more difficult for promoted teams to be competitive in the AFL again.

The problem with promotion/relegation is that relegated clubs have no chance of being competitive when promoted. none. And would be utterly screwed financially as sponsors drop them to move to the higher tier. The AFL couldnt afford to pay distributions to clubs in both tiers and it would have to for relegated clubs to survive and still maintain their player payments.

And then you end up with the AFL equivelant of the EPL. The top teams staying on top with the best sponsors and all the money.

 

[pinot]

The problem with promotion/relegation is that relegated clubs have no chance of being competitive when promoted. none. And would be utterly screwed financially as sponsors drop them to move to the higher tier. The AFL couldnt afford to pay distributions to clubs in both tiers and it would have to for relegated clubs to survive and still maintain their player payments.

And then you end up with the AFL equivelant of the EPL. The top teams staying on top with the best sponsors and all the money.

That sounds good to me.

Does one prefer talent with tactics or competition.

EPL is talent with tactics NFL is competition.

EPL has had Nottingham Forrest, Leeds, Blackburn Rovers, Liverpool, Derby, Everton, Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Newcastle, Arsenal all win the championship since the 1980s

AFL has had Richmond, Carlton, Colingwood, Hawthorn, Sydney, Port, West Coast, Essendon, Geelong, North & Lions.

Past 10 years

EPL = Man Utd, Chelsea, Man City Arsenal (many differest clubs have made it through to UEFA league Southampton being one of them and will get in excess 5-8 mln revenue)
AFL = Hawthorn, Geelong, Sydney, Collingwood

Whats the difference?

Fremantle may win it this year, Liverpool may win it next year.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Unfortunately, tho they don't "deserve" to have teams, GC and GWS have to be persisted with 'bigger picture'. But THAT two-team expansion HAS created a further drain on Vic teams and will ultimately cause 2+ Vic teams to die out. In a way, the AFL is already doing a process of culling.

Obviously, the answer, if we take our team bias away, is that there are too many Vic teams anyway. Not in the sense of crowds and memberships, but in the sense of National Comp. GWS, GC, even Sydney and Brisbane....they're not heartlands, small memberships, the fan money that pumps the AFL is coming from WA, SA and VIC. However, like I've said many times before....if WA and SA can only have two teams and not suffer fan departure, in fact growing more now than when the SANFL/WAFL were endangered by the creation of WCE, AC, etc.....then VICs will also continue to embrace the AFL itself even if they lost a bunch of teams thru merger or outright being relegated to the VFL and all new franchises with mickey mouse names like East Melbourne Knights were created that had no affiliation or previous history, just a totally new franchise. It's so ingrained in the Melbourne psyche, AR, that they'll continue to support the AFL product, find a new franchise team to start rooting for just like WA'ns had to embrace the Eagles or Dockers.

Personally....I'd rather see all Vic teams retain their history, moved down to the VFL, and say 2 new Melbourne-based teams created + a new unaffiliated Geelong.

If you relegated the Vic teams to the VFL and replaced them with 2 composite sides, the VFL would be bigger than the AFL in about 5 seconds.

It's another baffling "solution" you've proposed to a problem that doesn't exist.

If SA can support 2 sides, then Victoria can support at least 8 or 9.

The AFL have introduced the northern expansion sides with a long term plan to grab a greater foothold on the other side of the Barassi line. They certainly didn't expect the sides to have 40,000 members within 5 years.

 

[Colonial]

If you relegated the Vic teams to the VFL and replaced them with 2 composite sides, the VFL would be bigger than the AFL in about 5 seconds.

It's another baffling "solution" you've proposed to a problem that doesn't exist.

If SA can support 2 sides, then Victoria can support at least 8 or 9.

The AFL have introduced the northern expansion sides with a long term plan to grab a greater foothold on the other side of the Barassi line. They certainly didn't expect the sides to have 40,000 members within 5 years.

My god
Common sense.

 

[El_Scorcho]

The problem with promotion/relegation is that relegated clubs have no chance of being competitive when promoted. none. And would be utterly screwed financially as sponsors drop them to move to the higher tier. The AFL couldnt afford to pay distributions to clubs in both tiers and it would have to for relegated clubs to survive and still maintain their player payments.

And then you end up with the AFL equivelant of the EPL. The top teams staying on top with the best sponsors and all the money.

Exactly. Promotion and relegation doesn't work under a draft and salary cap system.

We certainly don't need it with 18 teams, and it would require a total restructuring of professional and semi-professional Australian Football.

Conferences make a lot more sense for our game than promotion/relegation.

 

[Exe Gesis]

If you relegated the Vic teams to the VFL and replaced them with 2 composite sides, the VFL would be bigger than the AFL in about 5 seconds.

It's another baffling "solution" you've proposed to a problem that doesn't exist.

If SA can support 2 sides, then Victoria can support at least 8 or 9.

The AFL have introduced the northern expansion sides with a long term plan to grab a greater foothold on the other side of the Barassi line. They certainly didn't expect the sides to have 40,000 members within 5 years.

Victorians are no different to WA'ns and SA'ns. They would embrace two new made-up franchises just as quickly and as passionately as those philistines further west did.

 

[IanW]

Conferences make a lot more sense for our game than promotion/relegation.

The AFL picked the other option.

We have the team for all South Australians, and the team for all South Australians to hate.

Dont take this wrong - I want Port in the AFL, and I want them playing in prison bars, but it's the dynamic that counts.

Never forget, Port is there to win premierships, and the Crows are there because the AFL needed a team in South Australia.

 

[Exe Gesis]

You're dreaming if you think the AFL is going to do anything that will jeopardise its potential earning into the future. They need two teams in every major market, and 9 games a week, otherwise they reduce the league ability to earn TV rights dollars. They will not reduce the number of teams. Only relocate

When they had 16 team comp, what was the TV rights deal?
Anyway, it's all beside the point....people will turn away from the game (crowds and digital media packages) if/when the spectacle and the lopsided thrashings and lopsided talent-levels become more and more of an eye-sore to hardcore fans, who start to question their time/money spent on it.
No point having 9 games a week if the majority of them are a snooze-fest and fans arent watching/paying as much as before.
Again, less is more. Less games in a year, less teams with more even pro-level talent spread thru......each game becomes a blockbuster and you will get HIGHER average crowds and higher average viewers than before.....even if the total numbers might be down (due to less games, the average takes it back up).

 

[El_Scorcho]

Victorians are no different to WA'ns and SA'ns. They would embrace two new made-up franchises just as quickly and as passionately as those philistines further west did.

No they wouldn't, because they've already got enormous elite level football clubs that play at a high level. Why watch the Melbourne Penguins play West Coast when down the road Hawthorn are playing Essendon?

You can't drop one or two Vic teams because of how badly it would hurt the fans. If you dropped all 10, they'd just stop watching AFL and go back to the VFL, which under your scenario would have 10 elite level clubs and be no worse a competition than the new AFL.