Why is the AFL never going to be truly equal?

[telsor]

I wonder if you would say the same thing if Aussie Rules took off and wasnt hamstrung by cricket and league in NSW in the 1900's?? With the leagues clubs and pokie money its a fair bet that the Sydney based comp would of been the starting point for the AFL.

So?

If AFL hadn't started at all...

If nerfball had taken off in Tassie...

If If If..

What happened is that Vic expanded when everyone else was too insular and scared to try it.

 

[madmug]

It might have been interesting, but the WAFL & SANFL clubs were too gutless to risk being big fish in their own little ponds to try anything like that, weren't they?

The VFL clubs took the risks of expanding, and now that they've succeeded, you seem to want to take advantage and discard those who did the work.

If you want a non vic-centric AFL, you should have set up your own...


Edit to add...and Tassie was too divided to even have a unified state league, let alone participate in a national one.

Interesting recollection. The VFL clubs didnt expand, they stayed where they were, except South who earlier on were just about stuffed so took a punt on Sydney.
I dont remember anyone saying we will take the best teams out of each competition. No, we will start with OUR whole competition, not just the ones who were best suited to the national stage. Also we will make sure we have a draft & salary cap so the worst of our VFL clubs can survive, & slowly add a few made up clubs. How brave of the VFL was that.
Equity & Equality not.
Balanced national competition, certainly not.
Respect for history, only if it refers to one states history, absolutely.

As for being antiVic, thats just a response reflex to certain selfish attitudes I get at times.

Also the chip about a united state league, we have 10 clubs in it, 4 changes from last year, all caused by AFL Tas, employed by the AFL. Solely interested in maximising the 'pathway, thing, having no care for the history & community involvement those clubs have/had & do value. All determined by the AFL for ITS own benefit. The clubs are fine about a state league. Its the AFL that are ripping clubs to bits.
Thats why they are in the Parliamentary inquiry. Not enough community care, all about elite development & export them interstate, SFA about local concerns.
Hows that?

 

[Kwality]

As opposed to the nice anti-vic sentiment you so frequently possess.

Its not the Victorians fault that SA and WA couldnt even stop their own teams from trying to join the VFL. Its not the Victorians fault that by virtue of greater population and economy they had more money to throw around. It IS the fault of the Victorians that they were able to take a league of clubs of whom half was bankrupt and turn it into the undisputed sporting heavyweight that it currently is.

South Melbourne to Sydney was the first step towards private ownership & a national comp.
Both the Bears & Eagles came in under the same structure & they paid the asking price.

Lets go back to the issue of a more equal AFL.

 

[Colonial]

So?

If AFL hadn't started at all...

If nerfball had taken off in Tassie...

If If If..

What happened is that Vic expanded when everyone else was too insular and scared to try it.

Thats fine, but its not the VFL anymore, there is a Victoria centric comp (VFL) but it no longer is (nor should it be) the AFL

 

[telsor]

Interesting recollection. The VFL clubs didnt expand, they stayed where they were, except South who earlier on were just about stuffed so took a punt on Sydney.
I dont remember anyone saying we will take the best teams out of each competition. No, we will start with OUR whole competition, not just the ones who were best suited to the national stage. Also we will make sure we have a draft & salary cap so the worst of our VFL clubs can survive, & slowly add a few made up clubs. How brave of the VFL was that.
Equity & Equality not.
Balanced national competition, certainly not.
Respect for history, only if it refers to one states history, absolutely.

The Victorian league, supported by the clubs expanded. Did they ever claim they were doing it to be fair and equal to the whole country?

Brave? Faced with half a league pressing bankrupcy, they could either take the safe option and shrink their expenses (crushing the other states who needed the transfer fees to stay solvent), or gamble half the comp and bring in new clubs and markets to increase revenue. I'd call that brave.

If they hadn't, or the rest of the country had stood their ground and insisted on a fair comepetition, then maybe it would have happened...More likely the VFL clubs would have just cut back their spending and we'd either still still have local leagues or someone like a TV station would have tried to make a 'super league'.

As for being antiVic, thats just a response reflex to certain selfish attitudes I get at times.

Also the chip about a united state league, we have 10 clubs in it, 4 changes from last year, all caused by AFL Tas, employed by the AFL. Solely interested in maximising the 'pathway, thing, having no care for the history & community involvement those clubs have/had & do value. All determined by the AFL for ITS own benefit. The clubs are fine about a state league. Its the AFL that are ripping clubs to bits.
Thats why they are in the Parliamentary inquiry. Not enough community care, all about elite development & export them interstate, SFA about local concerns.
Hows that?

If Tas is so willing and able to band together, why didn't they succeed in the various tries they had?

They needed the AFL (by your argument Victoria) to step in and impose on them. Even if AFLTas fails and the 'locals' do it, it'll only be because they were pushed to it.

 

[telsor]

Thats fine, but its not the VFL anymore, there is a Victoria centric comp (VFL) but it no longer is (nor should it be) the AFL

So, now the Vic clubs have done the hard yards, we should just dump them?

 

[The_Wookie]

I wonder if you would say the same thing if Aussie Rules took off and wasnt hamstrung by cricket and league in NSW in the 1900's?? With the leagues clubs and pokie money its a fair bet that the Sydney based comp would of been the starting point for the AFL.

But it didnt. And so here we are.

 

[The_Wookie]

Interesting recollection. The VFL clubs didnt expand, they stayed where they were, except South who earlier on were just about stuffed so took a punt on Sydney.
I dont remember anyone saying we will take the best teams out of each competition. No, we will start with OUR whole competition, not just the ones who were best suited to the national stage. Also we will make sure we have a draft & salary cap so the worst of our VFL clubs can survive, & slowly add a few made up clubs. How brave of the VFL was that.
Equity & Equality not.
Balanced national competition, certainly not.
Respect for history, only if it refers to one states history, absolutely.

As for being antiVic, thats just a response reflex to certain selfish attitudes I get at times.

Also the chip about a united state league, we have 10 clubs in it, 4 changes from last year, all caused by AFL Tas, employed by the AFL. Solely interested in maximising the 'pathway, thing, having no care for the history & community involvement those clubs have/had & do value. All determined by the AFL for ITS own benefit. The clubs are fine about a state league. Its the AFL that are ripping clubs to bits.
Thats why they are in the Parliamentary inquiry. Not enough community care, all about elite development & export them interstate, SFA about local concerns.
Hows that?

Root of all misunderstanding right there. The AFL didnt start in 1990, no matter how much people outside of Victoria wish it was so. It was an expansion of the VFL, followed by a rebrand in 1990. The VFL took all of its teams into the AFl, because the AFL WAS the VFL. Little more than a logo change with a few new teams attached.

 

[madmug]

Root of all misunderstanding right there. The AFL didnt start in 1990, no matter how much people outside of Victoria wish it was so. It was an expansion of the VFL, followed by a rebrand in 1990. The VFL took all of its teams into the AFl, because the AFL WAS the VFL. Little more than a logo change with a few new teams attached.

Well that doesnt change the reason for inequality both within the AFL & by the AFL to other leagues. Too many teams in Melbourne, thats THE biggest reason for the inequality & inequity we have discussed.
So again, how does that change? Well it wont be more equal until the structure itself is more equal & balanced.
Remember the Definition of insanity is doing the same thing & expecting a different outcome, ergo the need for CHANGE is RESTRUCTURE

 

[Rob]

So?

If AFL hadn't started at all...

If nerfball had taken off in Tassie...

If If If..

What happened is that Vic expanded when everyone else was too insular and scared to try it.

LOL, it was virtually the only option to preventing the impending bankruptcy of several VFL clubs. Don't try and pretend it was some sort of brave altruistic act for the good of the game.

If they didn't do it Elliott probably would have taken the top clubs with him and formed their own national league.

 

[The_Wookie]

LOL, it was virtually the only option to preventing the impending bankruptcy of several VFL clubs. Don't try and pretend it was some sort of brave altruistic act for the good of the game.

If they didn't do it Elliott probably would have taken the top clubs with him and formed their own national league.

People say this a lot, but the license fees for West Coast and Brisbane werent the be all and end all, while still important there was other factors. When expansion hit in 1987 the VFL was making 30 million a year, the SANFL and WAFL were making a combined 12 million. At the end of 1987, the VFL income doubled when it signed the 30 million tv deal with seven, and this is what put the issue beyond doubt.

 

[Kwality]

So how do you propose to fairly and equally resolve the dilemma of having to travel?

Fairly & equally is not a AFL policy, truly equal is but a dream, then there is more equal than the status quo, & that's where the equalization policy gets a run.

When some clubs in Victoria are able to offer their members a 17 game membership but all clubs outside Vic are limited to 11, its hardly anti Vic to point it out, nor is it unreasonable to suggest it can be addressed. It is not an impediment to success on & off the ground for the Hawks.

 

[The_Wookie]

Fairly & equally is not a AFL policy, truly equal is but a dream, then there is more equal than the status quo, & that's where the equalization policy gets a run.

When some clubs in Victoria are able to offer their members a 17 game membership but all clubs outside Vic are limited to 11, its hardly anti Vic to point it out, nor is it unreasonable to suggest it can be addressed. It is not an impediment to success on & off the ground for the Hawks.

Victorian clubs will play 17 games in viitoria to be able to captialise on that membership. Non victorian clubs will play a maximum of 12 games, and so in a very real sense it cannot be addressed. Thats unlikely to change unless there are drastic reductions in the number of victorian teams and a corresponding increase in non victorian ones.

 

[madmug]

Victorian clubs will play 17 games in viitoria to be able to captialise on that membership. Non victorian clubs will play a maximum of 12 games, and so in a very real sense it cannot be addressed. Thats unlikely to change unless there are drastic reductions in the number of victorian teams and a corresponding increase in non victorian ones.

Well we can at least make a start on that,
Go WA3 & Tas1!!!!

 

[telsor]

LOL, it was virtually the only option to preventing the impending bankruptcy of several VFL clubs. Don't try and pretend it was some sort of brave altruistic act for the good of the game.

If they didn't do it Elliott probably would have taken the top clubs with him and formed their own national league.

No, there were two options.

1. Expand, as happened ( and I never said it was altruistic ).

2. Cut expenses...The obvious one was to stop paying transfer fees when getting players from WA & SA (doing so was a 'gentlemans agreement' not a legal requirement)...Of course, this would have driven SA & WA clubs to the wall as to a large degree, money from Victoria was what kept these feeder leagues solvent.

Option 2 was safer.

 

[madmug]

No, there were two options.

1. Expand, as happened ( and I never said it was altruistic ).

2. Cut expenses...The obvious one was to stop paying transfer fees when getting players from WA & SA (doing so was a 'gentlemans agreement' not a legal requirement)...Of course, this would have driven SA & WA clubs to the wall as to a large degree, money from Victoria was what kept these feeder leagues solvent.

Option 2 was safer.

How do you know its what kept those clubs solvent? Do you have all their account figures for the period say 1950-1990? What amounts were paid?
I know it suits your footy world view but I've never heard of any club being saved from bankruptcy by VFL transfer fees, ie being kept solvent by selling players.
I remember a lot of good players leaving Tassie & going to the VFL, our club got fees but paid out a lot to recruit coaches & players of like quality to make up the difference. Also remember that players went from the VFL to other states, transfer fees were often extracted the other way.
If you can find one club I'd be surprised.
Even these days our clubs get nothing for AFL draft picks, it all goes to AFL Tas to run their elite programs.

 

[The_Wookie]

How do you know its what kept those clubs solvent? Do you have all their account figures for the period say 1950-1990? What amounts were paid?
I know it suits your footy world view but I've never heard of any club being saved from bankruptcy by VFL transfer fees, ie being kept solvent by selling players.
I remember a lot of good players leaving Tassie & going to the VFL, our club got fees but paid out a lot to recruit coaches & players of like quality to make up the difference. Also remember that players went from the VFL to other states, transfer fees were often extracted the other way.
If you can find one club I'd be surprised.
Even these days our clubs get nothing for AFL draft picks, it all goes to AFL Tas to run their elite programs.

Actually there was quite a bit of panic amongst the WA and SA state league clubs when transfer fees as they were then, were abolished since they were a significant part of their income. There's a paper or two out there that illustrates this - I dont have the time to get them out right now. It does probably play a part in the insistence that they get their fair share of the AFL club profits - particularly in SA where they receive a guaranteed dividend.

That said, there are still some development fees that go back to clubs depending on the amount of games they play.

 

[madmug]

Actually there was quite a bit of panic amongst the WA and SA state league clubs when transfer fees as they were then, were abolished since they were a significant part of their income. There's a paper or two out there that illustrates this - I dont have the time to get them out right now. It does probably play a part in the insistence that they get their fair share of the AFL club profits - particularly in SA where they receive a guaranteed dividend.

That said, there are still some development fees that go back to clubs depending on the amount of games they play.

Their is a big difference between 'Telsor' suggesting WA&SA clubs going belly up unless they get transfer fees from 'rich' VFL clubs & You suggesting the SA/WA clubs being a bit panicy that they will lose good players for nothing after investing heavily in those players development which was to have those players attract crowds to their clubs matches.

Neither view justifies the lopsided development of the league that ensued. That is the real basis for our current inequity & inequality

 

[The_Wookie]

Their is a big difference between 'Telsor' suggesting WA&SA clubs going belly up unless they get transfer fees from 'rich' VFL clubs & You suggesting the SA/WA clubs being a bit panicy that they will lose good players for nothing after investing heavily in those players development which was to have those players attract crowds to their clubs matches.

Neither view justifies the lopsided development of the league that ensued. That is the real basis for our current inequity & inequality

Again, nothing had to be said to justify the development of the league that ensued. It was an expansion of an existing league. It wasnt the creation of a new one, and unfortunately the folks that got their first arent really wanting to leave if they dont have to.

 

[Kwality]

Victorian clubs will play 17 games in viitoria to be able to captialise on that membership. Non victorian clubs will play a maximum of 12 games, and so in a very real sense it cannot be addressed. Thats unlikely to change unless there are drastic reductions in the number of victorian teams and a corresponding increase in non victorian ones.

Anything can be addressed, we see the 2014 FIXture attempting to provide a more transparent FIX than we have seen previously, time will tell.
That Vic team followers are entitled to more games than those dotted around the rest of the country could not be ignored by any serious claim to equalization.
To ignore that the Hawks have proven it can work, you do not have to play 17 games in Melbourne to win both on & off the field, its as obvious as the nose on your face albeit an anti Vic bias.

Start with removing 1 game per Vic club, exclude those already playing extra games outside Vic, the Hawks, Melbourne, not longer Richmond - its not Einstein stuff.

 

[The_Wookie]

Anything can be addressed, we see the 2014 FIXture attempting to provide a more transparent FIX than we have seen previously, time will tell.
That Vic team followers are entitled to more games than those dotted around the rest of the country could not be ignored by any serious claim to equalization.
To ignore that the Hawks have proven it can work, you do not have to play 17 games in Melbourne to win both on & off the field, its as obvious as the nose on your face albeit an anti Vic bias.

Start with removing 1 game per Vic club, exclude those already playing extra games outside Vic, the Hawks, Melbourne, not longer Richmond - its not Einstein stuff.

The number of home games allocated to non victorian teams wont change by an significant amount. Your dreaming otherwise. Hawthorn has proved it will work because the Tasmanian Government threw money at them - to the tune of 25 million dollars. And Hawthorn went because they were broke at the time, and have already indicated that its likely they wont do it again. Like it or not, the number of Victorian clubs means more games will always be available to Victorians. Unless a victorian club becomes insolvenet - something the AFL us unlikely to allow while it has the funds simply because the backlash will be huge now.

 

[telsor]

Their is a big difference between 'Telsor' suggesting WA&SA clubs going belly up unless they get transfer fees from 'rich' VFL clubs & You suggesting the SA/WA clubs being a bit panicy that they will lose good players for nothing after investing heavily in those players development which was to have those players attract crowds to their clubs matches.

Neither view justifies the lopsided development of the league that ensued. That is the real basis for our current inequity & inequality

I didn't say they'd go belly up, or that Vic clubs were rich...I said that Vic clubs cutting their expenses would drive other clubs to the wall due to the lack of transfer fees...It would mean those clubs would need to cut their expenses...Probably by paying players less (making them more likely to move to Victoria).

All in all, it would have been a bit step backwards in the sport becoming professional and widening the gap between the VFL and the rest.

 

[telsor]

Anything can be addressed, we see the 2014 FIXture attempting to provide a more transparent FIX than we have seen previously, time will tell.
That Vic team followers are entitled to more games than those dotted around the rest of the country could not be ignored by any serious claim to equalization.
To ignore that the Hawks have proven it can work, you do not have to play 17 games in Melbourne to win both on & off the field, its as obvious as the nose on your face albeit an anti Vic bias.

Start with removing 1 game per Vic club, exclude those already playing extra games outside Vic, the Hawks, Melbourne, not longer Richmond - its not Einstein stuff.

Playing away games in Vic doesn't really affect the bottom line, at least, not through memberships. I did the maths a few years back, paying Richmond for a 17 game membership Vs an 11 game membership and paying GA for the rest and there was practically no difference. As the club still pays the home team for the members who go, it's really just a convenience thing.

Where would you have these Vic teams travel to play, and who is going to pay for them (you realise most moved games are done for at least 500K).

 

[Kwality]

Playing away games in Vic doesn't really affect the bottom line, at least, not through memberships. I did the maths a few years back, paying Richmond for a 17 game membership Vs an 11 game membership and paying GA for the rest and there was practically no difference. As the club still pays the home team for the members who go, it's really just a convenience thing.

Where would you have these Vic teams travel to play, and who is going to pay for them (you realise most moved games are done for at least 500K).

Equalisation is taking money from clubs that generate it & giving it to clubs that don't - relocating games along the same principle, taking them from a loss making & over serviced market place relocating them to markets with demand. More bums on seats, games that make a profit, not a loss.

Not to be confused with deals like Richmond in NQ underwritten by the AFL in part or in full, what I'm suggesting is achieved thru the AFL FIXture.

 

[telsor]

Equalisation is taking money from clubs that generate it & giving it to clubs that don't - relocating games along the same principle, taking them from a loss making & over serviced market place relocating them to markets with demand. More bums on seats, games that make a profit, not a loss.

Not to be confused with deals like Richmond in NQ underwritten by the AFL in part or in full, what I'm suggesting is achieved thru the AFL FIXture.

So all Vic clubs need to move games to somewhere else, and pay for the priviledge, just so WA fans with a chip on their shoulder can feel good about themselves?

I asusme you also require us to play other Vic teams in the Broken Hill Cup (or wherever), because you still want your club to play on the MCG?

Of course, by moving all those games, the contracts with the MCG & Etihad would need to be renegotiated (minimum games and all), making games there less profitable...Can we tax WA teams to cover the losses?