WE NEED 12 TEAMS - WHO SHOULD GO ?

[Carey_is_King]

Originally posted by Davo:
St.Kilda
North Melbourne
Fremantle
Geelong

Piss on the weak
Shit on the dead!

Another thoughtful contribution. I think these boards need an intelligence filter.



------------------
Trample the Weak,
Hurdle the Dead.

 

[Carey_is_King]

Originally posted by Frodo:
A 14 team competition makes more sense. Making it a 26 round competition and extending the season by 4 weeks brings balance and four weeks of extra revenue for the weaker clubs. Last season showed that the season could start earlier.
Two mergers would be a good solution.
The interstate clubs are in a good position but I would like to see fixtures arranged so that the Eagles and Dockers play 2 at home then two away and stay in Melbourne for a week at least three times a season. This would cut down the travel and give a chance for Vic based supporters to see the teams train.

Frodo,
I have read some serious bagging of you in other posts, but I find it interesting that yours is one of the few thoughtful responses to my original topic. Thank you. (I actually forgot to mention in my original post that 12 teams would solve the issue of everyone playing each other twice in a season.)


------------------
Trample the Weak,
Hurdle the Dead.

 

[Carey_is_King]

Originally posted by FF:
Norths success has been the last 10 or so years overall thier history has not been flash. If night follows day and with their success now and still bugger all supporters what happens when 10 years failure beckons???
The clubs that garner the most support now will survive in the future. That is why the augument that Essendon has so many bandwagon teenage support makes me laugh. These kids become adults have children and who do they support? Richmond still has massive support gained from the 70's. Mergers will become fact I think.

Do you know how many members North have? Do you know which clubs had the greatest increase in members over the last year, two years, five years ? Do you know how many members Footscray, Melbourne, etc have ? You might be surprised by the answers.

I agree with your Essendon band wagon comment and Richmond's support base from the 70's.


------------------
Trample the Weak,
Hurdle the Dead.

 

[Carey_is_King]

Originally posted by Hunter21:
Carey is King, Maybe the AFl should try what the FA do over in England you have two compertitons and who ever finish in the last three spots of the Afl ladder gets relegated and the top three teams form the 1st Divison
get promoted into the AFL league. To get 16 teams in the 1st Divison teams might come from the VFL or interstate comps. Having said all this i think that the AFL should stay as it is. But i thought i may as well replay to see if you thought this method would work or not.

I don't think a relegation system addresses the issue of too many teams in the AFL, but I agree it might play a part if we could get the number down to 12. The problem would then be that the 2nd division would also need to be a national one, and the costs associated with that are significant. It's easier in a country the size of Victoria - our geography works against us in terms of travel costs.


------------------
Trample the Weak,
Hurdle the Dead.

 

[Cup_Half_Full]

If you get rid of-
Freo,
Port,
StKilda,

who will keep Collingwood off the bottom of the ladder?

 

[meg]

Originally posted by SpecialBruce:
North, Geelong, Richmond, Hawthorn will all go.

Special Bruce, there's no way Richmond will go.


meg

 

[CJH]

CIK,

For some related reading on this subject, may I recommend a few topics from yore that have sort of touched on this topic.

Be warned, you will need some time to get through them as they literally contain 100's of 1000 word essays!

Norwood AFL Bid... A club with it's back to the wall

Fitzroy - Dyson Hore-Lacey

---------------------------------------------
This is something that I have posted previously in another thread: http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/002035.html . I am too lazy to rewrite, so I will cut and paste it here. This was in response to a post from Simple Mathematician. It may well pay to read this post as well in order to place my response in context.

CJH

I actually believe that the competition will be most viable with a 14 team competition, no Ansett Cup and 26 rounds of football.

I believe that the existing 6 interstate sides will survive intact and there will be at least one more team in each of Queensland (Southport) and New South Wales (West Sydney or Canberra). That leaves 6 teams within Victoria.

I believe Carlton, Collingwood and Essendon will remain intact for the reasons you have provided.

I believe Richmond have had a shocking 2 decades but have retained a large non-fickle supporter core, plus an even larger contingent of bandwagon jumpers! If we are this strong at our weakest, then our potential strength is up there with the likes of Essendon.

I believe Geelong will survive the near terminal financial cancer that they have recently experienced. Being the sole team in a largish town ensures plenty of local sponsorship, and helps the competition as a whole with better distribution of clubs.

I believe it is with the 5 remaining clubs that it will become interesting. I would suggest that at best either 2 sets of 2 clubs would have to merge OR at worst, 2 clubs will go to the wall. I would also suggest that only 1 of these 5 clubs will be able to survive in their own right in Melbourne.

As discussed in previous threads, the Southport carrot must be sorely tempting and the long term potential - with AFL support - of a second Sydney side possibly playing out of Homebush is great.

I believe that the Kangaroos have already put in a lot of ground work into a NSW migration with the (less than successful)Sydney experiment and the VFL side being based in Lavington. My belief is that until they committ to NSW they will not ever succeed. They would be perceived as a team that is only temporary and not one that belongs.

Judging by comments made previously from David Smorgon, the Western Bulldogs are quite hard up against it. Smorgon is quite a smart operator though, and I wouldn't be suprised if he took the bold decision to 'merge' with Southport on his terms.

Given that North Melbourne and Western Bulldogs have quite a lot in common, I would not rule out a possible joint-venture Sydney move. They are the only 2 Victorian clubs with management bold enough to take this step.

It is reported in today's Herald Sun that Joe Gutnick will not be putting any more money into the Melbourne Football Club. Quite rightly, he indicates that they have to learn to stand on their own two feet.

I agree with your comments on Hawthorn. They have been successful in converting a large percentage of their supporters into members (and their supporters cats, dogs, cars, etc... ).

St. Kilda are interesting. A few years of excellent management may well see them as a power side. They have a large supporter base and a rapidly improving player list. However, they have a long history of failure and under achievment. Can Butterss and Blight change this culture? If yes, then they will survive. If no, then they will be one of the first to go. This is the crossroads for them.

------------------
This is a hallucination and these faces are in a dream. A computer generated environment; a fantasy island you can do anything and not have to face the consequences.

 

[Carey_is_King]

CJH,
Thanks for a thoughtful contribution. I have reader's cramp now, and I am going to have a Bex and a lie down.

------------------
Trample the Weak,
Hurdle the Dead.

 

[James2]

A relegation/promotion system, as occurs in soccer, will not work.

Once a team drops into a lower league, they will lose sponsership and revenue, this will effect the club's profitability and their ability to compete.

There is also the issue of drafts. Are the clubs in the lower divisions allowed to compete in the draft? If so, it will spread the talent thinner then it currently is, impacting on the quality of the competition. If they aren't however, it will be difficult for these teams to improve. It is a "no-win" situation. This applies to the salary cap too.

Relegation/promotion is not an option.

On a seperate issue, the licence fees from interstate clubs, did not save any Victorian clubs. Licence fees, were a extraordinary payment which vanished within a year. It had no effect on the long-term viability of any Victorian club. Having said that, I still favour the national competition, I just think that the benefits should be put in perspective.

Cheers

------------------
"Be not afraid of greatness."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night.

 

[Joel 11]

The 4 that should go are Geelong Bulldogs St.Kilda and Kangaroos

 

[Rob]

Let's be realistic here. A club will continue to exist in the AFL if it is able to sustain itself in thd competition. i.e pay it's way, and not let the creditors become too pissed off. Like it or not, Fremantle and Port are about on par with Essendon (despite poor on field results) in terms of financial viability, and shit all over any other Victorian club in that area. Hell, both clubs spent more money on new training facilities in the last couple of years to make any Victorian club have a panic attack. So despite the drivel spouted, neither side is going anywhere, and the AFL would take both of them in the league before at least 2/3 of the Victorian sides.
But back to the point. Any club, whether it be St Kilda or Collingwood, will continue to have a place in the AFL as long as they can pay their bills. On field success is irrelevant directly, if you lose every game for 5 years and still make profits, you will remain in the AFL. As it stands at the moment, the most vulnerable teams would appear to be North, St Kilda, the Bulldogs and Geelong. You would expect that a few consecutive losing seasons would probably send any one of those clubs to the wall. If the AFL stopped propping them up in the form on the 'equalisation fund', it would probably only take a year.

 

[Carey_is_King]

Originally posted by Rob:
Let's be realistic here. A club will continue to exist in the AFL if it is able to sustain itself in thd competition. i.e pay it's way, and not let the creditors become too pissed off. Like it or not, Fremantle and Port are about on par with Essendon (despite poor on field results) in terms of financial viability, and shit all over any other Victorian club in that area. Hell, both clubs spent more money on new training facilities in the last couple of years to make any Victorian club have a panic attack. So despite the drivel spouted, neither side is going anywhere, and the AFL would take both of them in the league before at least 2/3 of the Victorian sides.
But back to the point. Any club, whether it be St Kilda or Collingwood, will continue to have a place in the AFL as long as they can pay their bills. On field success is irrelevant directly, if you lose every game for 5 years and still make profits, you will remain in the AFL. As it stands at the moment, the most vulnerable teams would appear to be North, St Kilda, the Bulldogs and Geelong. You would expect that a few consecutive losing seasons would probably send any one of those clubs to the wall. If the AFL stopped propping them up in the form on the 'equalisation fund', it would probably only take a year.

Rob,
The equalisation fund was a way of evening out attendance income, but it went by the wayside this year, so it is no longer an issue.



------------------
Trample the Weak,
Hurdle the Dead.

 

[sabre_ac]

Originally posted by Carey_is_King:
This whole competition would be more financially viable if there were 12 teams. Also, the standard of play would be better, because the 120-odd worst players would "wash" to the bottom and disappear.

My nominations would be, with apologies to their supporters;

Fremantle - out of their depth and don't look like making it in my lifetime.

Port - Don't know why they were admitted in the first place. Premierships in SA don't cut it.

St Kilda - Administration has been a basket case for as long as anyone can remember, and on-field performance has been crappy for nearly as long.

Geelong - Should amalgamate with Footscray. It would do them both good. Why should a hick town like Geelong have a team anyway ?

I know some of you will say that North are candidates because of their financial position, but they have been successful in spite of that. Think how much better they would be if there was more money to go around.

Bring on the comments

Wow didn' this one get going fast.Potential here for some personal attacks.But hey thats big footy.

Did someone say Dockers?

Now would this be a case of what is known as the "kettle calling the pot black"
From what I have been able to gather
Kangaroos are constantly in financial danger and if the syd deal continues not to work then there supporter base will remain low.

Now on to the dockers.
High membership
High POTENTIAL supporter base
Larger profits

this does not equate to them being removed from the competition.Nor any of the other interstate clubs.
Sydney especially, potential supporter base there is huge
Port have i think the third highest membership numbers in the league.

If anything it should be some of the struggling melbourne based clubs that get the flick.

But that would again be a sad day.The Afl makes a fortune, why not preserve these clubs because of in some cases there rich history.And personally I cant think of the AFL and not think of sides like the roos or Western Doggies.

Anyway who says that football clubs have to draw revenue from membership and merchandise.
I say start of your own buisiness enterprises,with the AFL pouring rediculous amounts of money to support these ventures.

Then agan I may be way off.

Either way all teams have to stay and worse case senario should be merger.

CIK dont try and claim your not baiting people, when many of your comments are especially about port and feo, on the there on feild performance.Kinda looks ridiculous when you give totally different reasons for the melbourne based clubs.

So let me get the right
Poor on field record=out regardless of revenue

 

[Carey_is_King]

Sabre_ac,

Baiting ? Me ?? Whatever can you mean ?

Before you speak that oft repeated bullshit about "North don't have any members", at the close-off in June last year, North were one of only 4 Vic-based clubs to have had an increase in memberships. (Essendon, Carlton & Geelong were the others.) You may remember that St Kilda, Melbourne & Footscray struggled to reach 20,000, Hawthorn had 27,000 (down 4,000 because the dogs & cats forgot to register) and even Collingwood only had 28,000. Essendon were top with 34,000. How many did North have ? Check it out.

As for Freo & Port and their worth to the league, I remind you that Port have turned a $2.8M profit into a $285K loss this year. Now that's a turnaround ! They have some $5M in assets, but at this rate, they won't have for long. Their average crowd for 2000 was 26,000, and the best crowd they have ever pulled was 45,000.

I don't know what Freo's financial state is, so I can't comment, but they too have never pulled more than 40,000 to any game, and that was 5 years ago before the novelty wore off. Remember also, that most of what these clubs make in terms of trading profit goes back to the state leagues they support. It doesn't benefit the AFL at all.

PS I gave the same reasons for StKilda going - crap on the field and off it.
------------------
Trample the Weak,
Hurdle the Dead.

[This message has been edited by Carey_is_King (edited 17 December 2000).]

 

[Spidergirl~RiCkChiCk]

Port ->Back to SANFL
Freo->Bye bye we already have West Coast
St.Kilda->Too poor for too long
Geel/Roos/Hawks???

sPiDeR eVeRiTt and RiCkY oLaReNsHaW
~kewlest players round!!!

 

[JUBJUB]

Originally posted by Spidergirl~RiCkChiCk:

St.Kilda->Too poor for too long
*******************************************

This coming from a Collingwood supporter.One final in ten years.

------------------
"Absatively Posilutely"

 

[Richmondfan#1]

I agree with you meg. Richmond will not go. I know that supporters can not save a club but they will have a lot of support from them. I think the AFL knows that to get rid of the Tigers would be a big loss financially (merchandise, memberships etc.).

 

[AlfAndrews]

Funny how no one has suggested that Collingwood should go. Is this some sort of admission, from all the Collingwood haters, that we are actually important to this competition. That we serve some function ... if only to be the Club that everyone loves to bag.

I actually believe that Collingwood WILL fold within the next few years. I've mentioned this quite a lot and people think I'm crazy for suggesting it. They keep saying that we've got too many supporters and too much money, rah rah rah.

But if we stay at the arse end of the ladder for much longer we'll be dead meat.

Whatever happens, it will be Victorian clubs that will go. And so it should be.

Excuse the apparent irony of my signature. (I'm not saying I want us to fold ... I just believe that we will)



------------------
**floreat pica**

 

[Frodo]

Sabre, I agree with your sentiments that losing clubs or mergers takes a lot of tradition out and would cause sadness but I do think that the AFL should be aiming at a balanced competition where ever club plays each other twice. Currently that would mean 30 rounds and whilst I can see 26 being managable 30 plus Ansett plus finals would be too long.
The Dockers and Port have been good additions to the AFL giving some local rivalry in SA and WA which is very healthy.

 

[CJH]

Alf,

The only reason why I haven't suggested Collingwood as deadmeat is because of the management team of Eddie and Co. Now, I am not saying they are doing a good job - not in comparison with the Kangaroos - but they have crucially recognised that the past management of Collingwood were woeful and are doing something about rectifying it. Without admission of this fact, I believe that Collingwood would indeed be dead meat regardless of how many supporters, history etc.

Look at Geelong. Not as big as Collingwood, but with healthy support and sponsorship, reasonable successful on field team, great facilities, etc., but went within an ace of going bankrupt.

It was only some snappy management from Brian Cook and Frank Costa that has them out of the immediate danger zone.

You are right - this could so easily happen to Collingwood. For your sake, I hope Eddie does succeed.

------------------
This is a hallucination and these faces are in a dream. A computer generated environment; a fantasy island you can do anything and not have to face the consequences.

 

[joshhem]

Originally posted by Carey_is_King:
Their average crowd for 2000 was 26,000, and the best crowd they have ever pulled was 45,000..

CIK....Ok you can't go comparing crowd attendances for interstate teams... You're taking th size of you stadiums for granted. 45000 is their highest attendance, and you know what, if they had another 10000 seats in the stadium, I'm sure they would have been filled.

And you can't expect them to pull a big croud when the play at the larger stadiums anyway, cause they're not on home turf.

There needs to be a new way of calcuating the percentage of seats they fill!

------------------
Un'B.Lee'vable

 

[FF]

Originally posted by Carey_is_King:u. For your benefit, I will float a "Who do we hate the most in our one-eyed stupidity?" topic. Stay tuned.

[/B]

Put yourself down against Essendon (don't forget now)

 

[Carey_is_King]

Originally posted by joshhem:
CIK....Ok you can't go comparing crowd attendances for interstate teams... You're taking th size of you stadiums for granted. 45000 is their highest attendance, and you know what, if they had another 10000 seats in the stadium, I'm sure they would have been filled.

And you can't expect them to pull a big croud when the play at the larger stadiums anyway, cause they're not on home turf.

There needs to be a new way of calcuating the percentage of seats they fill!

Joshhem,
That's fair comment. What I should have added was that the year 2000 average attendance at Port games was down some 4,000 on the previous year.


------------------
Trample the Weak,
Hurdle the Dead.

 

[The invisible mullet]

Much as I would like to see one of the underperforming interstate teams go I can't see it happening. for the quality of the game I agree that a 12 or 14 team competition is preferable. Those to go or merge:

Geelong
Bulldogs
Melbourne
Richmond

2 mergers and we'd have a good 14 team comp - wouldn't mind lists going up by a couple of players again though.

 

[Port Adelaide 1870]

Saint Kilda : 1 premiership in a hundred years ?
North Melbourne : a huge drain on the AFL, the club & fans seem a pariah to the AFL.
Western Bulldogs : repeat Saint Kilda ( give or take a few years )

Who else ?
Merge two Melbourne sides, Melbourne and Hawthorn , before one of them diss.appears

Carey is King, It does matter that Port have won 34 SA premierships......Well at least I think it does... as they no longer play in the SANFL and are now a member of the AFL.


North Melbourne, Saint Kilda and Western Bulldogs need not fold, they could field their clubs as VFA / VFL entities and carry on their huge traditions in the Melbourne inviroment. With the HUGE Victorian support they have, the large Melbourne population and the tradition and history that the clubs carry, they could easily muster a crowd in the VFA / VFL. St. Kilda could pack out Junction Oval, North Melbourne ,Arden St. and Footscray ,Western Oval.

That way Victorian members of these clubs wouldnt have to concern themselves about interstate travel. These clubs would no longer be a drain on the more financial,traditional and successful clubs such as Essendon, Port , Carlton, Collingwood and Co.

Newer clubs like Adelaide, Freo, west coast would not be required to prop up the AFL 's lead weights, North Melbourne Saint Kilda etc.

PA1870

------------------------------------------------------------------

When the Shark bites
with his teeth dear
and he shows them
Pearly white.