Time to scrap all Vic clubs and create 3-4 mega Vic franchises

[juss]

I think the clubs would be better balanced if you moved 2 teams from Melbourne and we had a Tassie team and maybe a Canberra team or a 3rd WA team or SA team or something, but it's pretty drastic and I don't know how you get it done.

3-4 VIC teams would be absolutely super clubs and not improve the game, and realistically you can't savage 30% of the league by cutting a heap of clubs.

 

[Atomboy]

and how many people live within an hour of Ballarat compared to how many people live within an hour of Darwin?

250 million Indonesians if you fly an hour North

 

[VinnieB]

250 million Indonesians if you fly an hour North

Just what the Saints need.

 

[Hap Hapablap]

They already have with Fitzroy and South Melbourne.

by your logic we should be outraged at the demise of university. how dare they!?!?!

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

by your logic we should be outraged at the demise of university. how dare they!?!?!

That was 100 years ago and they left voluntarily

 

[tonygeeks]

Everyone scoffs at these type of suggestions ( rightly so IMO ) but there is one scenario which could lead to a super league style remodelling of the game … player wages

If some of the top young athletes start to question why they should devote their career to a comp that pays them like 5000th best soccer player in the world even if they rise to the top of the game then you might see something like this happen to get the salary cap up to a competitive level

Of course this will pretty much price a LOT of fans out of the elite version of the game , say goodbye to $30 tickets and FTA tv

Everyone who can’t afford it heads back to their state league clubs and it will feel more like an English soccer style set up with the AFL as premium league and state league teams providing somewhere poorer footy family’s can go along and watch a game for 100 - 150 bucks or so

 

[Atomboy]

Just what the Saints need.

If we could just get 1% of the market !!

 

[Journey]

Even better idea, build a bridge between Murray Bridge and Port Augusta so no one has to go through Adelaide and be met by the mindless tribe that exists there

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Not sure the OP makes much sense, given the below figures...

Winners and losers: The 2023 AFL club funding ladder revealed

As the AFL finalises the variable funding for 2023, The Age can reveal what the clubs have been told they will receive. Shedding light on the figures has prompted Collingwood president Jeff Browne to call on the AFL to do something about the funding chasm.

www.theage.com.au

St. Kilda and North get the same funding as Brisbane, and they get less than GWS and Gold Coast.

Port and Sydney are only $2m behind too, and get the same as the Bulldogs.


These figures don't really support the narrative that Vic clubs are a significant drain on the comp at all.

 

[RUNVS]

Not sure the OP makes much sense, given the below figures...

Winners and losers: The 2023 AFL club funding ladder revealed

As the AFL finalises the variable funding for 2023, The Age can reveal what the clubs have been told they will receive. Shedding light on the figures has prompted Collingwood president Jeff Browne to call on the AFL to do something about the funding chasm.

www.theage.com.au

St. Kilda and North get the same funding as Brisbane, and they get less than GWS and Gold Coast.

Port and Sydney are only $2m behind too, and get the same as the Bulldogs.


These figures don't really support the narrative that Vic clubs are a significant drain on the comp at all.

Yes but the difference is that Brisbane, GWS and Gold Coast all add something to the competition in terms of expansion and growth. The TV rights deal would have been a lot less without an AFL presense in Queensland. However, if you cut St Kilda and North from the competition tomorrow you would not see much of a reduction in the TV rights deal at all.

 

[Coolangatta]

Yes but the difference is that Brisbane, GWS and Gold Coast all add something to the competition in terms of expansion and growth. The TV rights deal would have been a lot less without an AFL presense in Queensland. However, if you cut St Kilda and North from the competition tomorrow you would not see much of a reduction in the TV rights deal at all.

The AFL is Victoria centric hence the ridiculous MCG contract until 2059.

They wanted to keep the AFL to 18 teams by shoving the Kangaroos on to Tasmania instead of giving them their awesome Devils identity.

Instead they could have merged the Saints and North, keeping them in Victoria, add Tasmania, and you’d still have an 18 team competition.

 

[Square Peg]

Not sure the OP makes much sense, given the below figures...

Winners and losers: The 2023 AFL club funding ladder revealed

As the AFL finalises the variable funding for 2023, The Age can reveal what the clubs have been told they will receive. Shedding light on the figures has prompted Collingwood president Jeff Browne to call on the AFL to do something about the funding chasm.

www.theage.com.au

St. Kilda and North get the same funding as Brisbane, and they get less than GWS and Gold Coast.

Port and Sydney are only $2m behind too, and get the same as the Bulldogs.


These figures don't really support the narrative that Vic clubs are a significant drain on the comp at all.

These figures support the idea that there should only be one club in NSW, one in Qld, and about four less in Victoria. Cull six teams. That would also align well with national viewing figures, with about five-six times as many viewers in Vic as there are in either NSW or Qld, and three times as many in Vic as there are in either WA or SA.
There are several rational arguments to support a reduction in the number of Vic teams, aligning with these figures. Possibly the only thing of surprise to me is the relative poor performance of Port

 

[kirbatron]

great idea.

no one in Vic would follow football again

 

[bzparkes]

Finally, a proposal that makes perfect sense.

 

[Coolangatta]

These figures support the idea that there should only be one club in NSW, one in Qld, and about four less in Victoria. Cull six teams. That would also align well with national viewing figures, with about five-six times as many viewers in Vic as there are in either NSW or Qld, and three times as many in Vic as there are in either WA or SA.
There are several rational arguments to support a reduction in the number of Vic teams, aligning with these figures. Possibly the only thing of surprise to me is the relative poor performance of Port

They don’t do anything of the sort. GWS and Gold Coast aren’t self sustaining yet but it was always going to take time.

The older heads aren’t very interested in footy but apparently tonnes of kids in western Sydney are. Gold Coast is also doing very well at grassroots level, all they need is to start seeing some on field success.

Queensland and NSW grow the market, Victoria doesn’t. All Victoria does is make it difficult for footy keen markets like Tasmania and Canberra to enter the AFL because there’s 10 teams from Victoria. I’d rather not see any teams fold but merge like what should’ve happened with Fitzroy and the Bulldogs.

St Kilda Kangaroos has potential, I don’t think Saints and Roos fans would stop supporting them if they nail the aesthetics and song.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Yes but the difference is that Brisbane, GWS and Gold Coast all add something to the competition in terms of expansion and growth. The TV rights deal would have been a lot less without an AFL presense in Queensland. However, if you cut St Kilda and North from the competition tomorrow you would not see much of a reduction in the TV rights deal at all.

One less game each week wouldn't reduce the TV money??

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

These figures support the idea that there should only be one club in NSW, one in Qld, and about four less in Victoria. Cull six teams. That would also align well with national viewing figures, with about five-six times as many viewers in Vic as there are in either NSW or Qld, and three times as many in Vic as there are in either WA or SA.
There are several rational arguments to support a reduction in the number of Vic teams, aligning with these figures. Possibly the only thing of surprise to me is the relative poor performance of Port

I don't see a rational argument.

How much revenue does the game generate from having 18 teams?

Then subtract the attached distribution figures.

The AFL is left with a massive profit.


So what's the problem?? What's the rational argument to reduce the amount of teams?

 

[Square Peg]

They don’t do anything of the sort. GWS and Gold Coast aren’t self sustaining yet but it was always going to take time.

The older heads aren’t very interested in footy but apparently tonnes of kids in western Sydney are. Gold Coast is also doing very well at grassroots level, all they need is to start seeing some on field success.

Queensland and NSW grow the market, Victoria doesn’t. All Victoria does is make it difficult for footy keen markets like Tasmania and Canberra to enter the AFL because there’s 10 teams from Victoria. I’d rather not see any teams fold but merge like what should’ve happened with Fitzroy and the Bulldogs.

St Kilda Kangaroos has potential, I don’t think Saints and Roos fans would stop supporting them if they nail the aesthetics and song.

Since moving to Sydney 40 years ago the swans have played in six grand finals, won two flags and still need more financial help than more than half the clubs. I think your optimism re GWS and GCS becoming self sustaining anytime may be misplaced

 

[JackOutback]

I don't see a rational argument.

How much revenue does the game generate from having 18 teams?

Then subtract the attached distribution figures.

The AFL is left with a massive profit.


So what's the problem?? What's the rational argument to reduce the amount of teams?

By that logic, we should have 20 teams. Or 30 or 40.

There is always an argument for quality over quantity.

 

[Square Peg]

I don't see a rational argument.

How much revenue does the game generate from having 18 teams?

Then subtract the attached distribution figures.

The AFL is left with a massive profit.


So what's the problem?? What's the rational argument to reduce the amount of teams?

The rational argument is about reducing the number of Vic teams relative to other teams. Currently there is no rational argument for why Victoria, which has 2.5 times the population of WA and about 3 times the commercial influence across the industry, has five times the number of teams.
As I have already explained, the current fixture is a farce and if we want to return to a fair H&A fixture for 22 rounds you need 12 teams. I think that's an elegant way of solving two problems - Vic bias and a distorted uneven fixture. Of course there's other ways of solving these problems, like adding five more non Vic teams or something and playing each team once a year alternating home games across two years, but I prefer the reduction.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

The rational argument is about reducing the number of Vic teams relative to other teams. Currently there is no rational argument for why Victoria, which has 2.5 times the population of WA and about 3 times the commercial influence across the industry, has five times the number of teams.
As I have already explained, the current fixture is a farce and if we want to return to a fair H&A fixture for 22 rounds you need 12 teams. I think that's an elegant way of solving two problems - Vic bias and a distorted uneven fixture. Of course there's other ways of solving these problems, like adding five more non Vic teams or something and playing each team once a year alternating home games across two years, but I prefer the reduction.

Yeah, Ok - I agree with it from a fixturing perspective. Absolutely.

 

[Coolangatta]

By that logic, we should have 20 teams. Or 30 or 40.

There is always an argument for quality over quantity.

Which is why if we ever get to 21-24 teams they should consider splitting the competition into two divisions of 12 teams, promoting two and relegating two. Televise the second division games so fans don’t miss out on watching their team play.

They can just add more teams to the second division if they want more clubs. No one will care about an unbalanced fixture in the second division as much as they would the first which would stay at 12 teams playing each other twice.

 

[RUNVS]

One less game each week wouldn't reduce the TV money??

It would be a reduction, but not a big reduction as I am willing to bet North and St Kilda games don't rate as well as many of the other Victorian clubs.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

It would be a reduction, but not a big reduction as I am willing to bet North and St Kilda games don't rate as well as many of the other Victorian clubs.

More than $20m?

Basic sums would tell you that the networks would immediately expect to pay 1/9th less straight off the bat.

That's around $60m.


And that doesn't even factor in the losses that come with pissing off 200000 customers.


Now granted, that could potentially be recouped over the next couple of decades if the AFL restructured the comp and it worked - but that's an enormous risk. No one in their right mind would roll the dice like that.

 

[RUNVS]

More than $20m?

Basic sums would tell you that the networks would immediately expect to pay 1/9th less straight off the bat.

That's around $60m.


And that doesn't even factor in the losses that come with pissing off 200000 customers.


Now granted, that could potentially be recouped over the next couple of decades if the AFL restructured the comp and it worked - but that's an enormous risk. No one in their right mind would roll the dice like that.

There is a law of diminishing returns when it comes to more games. If there were only 4 games a week you would be right that adding a 5th would add to the TV rights a lot, but adding a 6th game would be still adding more but less than before, and adding a 7th would be less again and so forth. The reason is that there are very few people who are able to watch 8 games in a round and certainly not 9 games.

If someone watched 3 games a round they are going to watch 3 games whether there are 8 games on or 9 games. They have time for 3 games and adding a game is not going to suddenly give them more free time.