Why is the AFL never going to be truly equal?

[madmug]

Not like everyone in Tas will support 'their' team either. Lets face it, they're traditionally fractured and every attempt at state football there (league, team, etc) has been ripped apart by such dissent. Are we supposed to believe they'll miraculously change that if give an AFL team?

You just have no idea.
The first state league was torn up by AFLTas because it was poorly run & was going broke, they wanted a VFL team. They F&*kt up the Devils by amalgamating with NorthMelbourne, so they started the 2nd state league. With all its problems, a north v south argument/division has never been the problem. The problem is travel & public support for the hated AFLTas. AFLTas, a fully employed & controlled regional office of the AFL.

The footy Division down here has been over getting AFL footy.
We have two stadiums with different FIFO clubs.
Despite your ignorant imagination, an AFL club would use both grounds for best effect.
If you want to know something about footy here in Tassie, just ask me.
But dont just make it up.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

It is very hard this debate, I can tell you that if I was a victorian I know I would certainly be all about keeping all vic clubs no matter what. As a WA person I am still pissed off how the AFL was formed or evolved. I do not blame the VFL I blame the WAFL and the SANFL as they could of said we will not join under your terms but we will put together a national comp that has the best interest of all 3 major football leagues.
This did not happen.
It is what it is now, it hurts me to see my great club West Perth in second tier football. I am not a fan of franchises even though I support one of them. But I had little choice if I wanted to follow football at the highest level.
We can all talk around in circles until the cows come home but seriously what will change. The AFL is clearly an expanded VFL still, it is very Vic centric. Maybe it should be as it evolved out of the VFL?
There is so much money in it now that people will not be honest and money can buy opinions, you will never sell to me that Leigh Matthews or Kevin Bartlett like the modern game, but they are paid enough to say what the AFl want them to say. it is their living.
Should Tassie have a side? yes of course they should. But what can you do when your mandate is to protect 10 clubs as a priority at the expense of a truly national league. You can't blame the AFL/VFL. It still comes back to the WAFL and SANFL not being strong enough to hold out and form a real national comp.

 

[Kwality]

Wookie name calling? I'd go a beige kettle.
Yet another example of how far out of your depth you are wandering in this thread.

Yes, it is a commercially niave suggestion - what about boxes, pourage, coterie rooms etc, etc. Will you use the lowest common denominator with time frames a la Adelaide Oval & the MCG, would the AFL PAY for dates it wants to nominate (e.g Subi), or would demand exclusive access/the ground manager may not offer that ....

 

[Kwality]

So, why not solve the problem and see if the symptoms are still there.

As for opposition supporters contributing to profits...You accused wookie of being economically naive, so I assume you're aware of the concept of economies of scale. Most commercial endeavours consider this to be a good thing.


Most of what you, Rob & madmug suggest here is merely a combination of your vested interest, occasionally working together in the collective spirit of 'kick a vic'. The scary part is that you seem so myopic that I fear you genuinely do see this as 'fair'.

Just for something different, try and present an idea for fairness that doesn't involve your team, or bringing down Victorian teams. It'd make a novel change from any of you.

Is this an example of Captain Comprehensions navel gazing.

It goes like this - with few Melbourne based supporters for the non Melbourne teams, when many Melbourne clubs play the fly in clubs, some of them cant pull a break even crowd - they lose money putting the FIXture on - are you there Harry - many clubs don't e.g Collingwood, or the Hawks who make a profit by playing in Tassie, Geelong play in Sleepy Hollow.
I'd have thought you are still with me?
When these loss makers play the Pies or the Hawks in Melbourne, the crowd ensures a profit.

Now lets deal with this gross misrepresentation, yet another Captain Comprehension-ism:

You accused wookie of being economically naïve​

Wrong, just plain wrong - it was his idea that is commercially niave. The AFL have their fingers in the stuff ups that are the Melbourne stadium arrangements with different deals for different clubs at different stadiums - imagine the mess they'd make if they blunder about across the country.​

​

Go back to the equalization factor, games /travel.​

​

​

 

[The_Wookie]

Wookie name calling? I'd go a beige kettle.
Yet another example of how far out of your depth you are wandering in this thread.

Yes, it is a commercially niave suggestion - what about boxes, pourage, coterie rooms etc, etc. Will you use the lowest common denominator with time frames a la Adelaide Oval & the MCG, would the AFL PAY for dates it wants to nominate (e.g Subi), or would demand exclusive access/the ground manager may not offer that ....

Its not as commercially naive as some of the suggestions in this thread re: victorian teams and travel. In any thread on any board on any poster by any mod this is considered a personal attack for which you've been warned a number of times. If you continue to attack the poster instead of the argument you will be banned from these threads.

 

[Papa G]

It is very hard this debate, I can tell you that if I was a victorian I know I would certainly be all about keeping all vic clubs no matter what. As a WA person I am still pissed off how the AFL was formed or evolved. I do not blame the VFL I blame the WAFL and the SANFL as they could of said we will not join under your terms but we will put together a national comp that has the best interest of all 3 major football leagues.
This did not happen.
It is what it is now, it hurts me to see my great club West Perth in second tier football. I am not a fan of franchises even though I support one of them. But I had little choice if I wanted to follow football at the highest level.
We can all talk around in circles until the cows come home but seriously what will change. The AFL is clearly an expanded VFL still, it is very Vic centric. Maybe it should be as it evolved out of the VFL?
There is so much money in it now that people will not be honest and money can buy opinions, you will never sell to me that Leigh Matthews or Kevin Bartlett like the modern game, but they are paid enough to say what the AFl want them to say. it is their living.
Should Tassie have a side? yes of course they should. But what can you do when your mandate is to protect 10 clubs as a priority at the expense of a truly national league. You can't blame the AFL/VFL. It still comes back to the WAFL and SANFL not being strong enough to hold out and form a real national comp.

I still think Max Basheer and whoever was his WA counter part have a huge amount to answer for. Basheer is lauded as some kind of hero in SA where in actual fact he's a ****ing moron. Him and his WA and possibly Tasmanian counterpart should have been feverishly working to get a better outcome and national representation in a truly national league, one where there was a not disproportionate balance of power. Together the 3 other football states could have taken on Victoria and designed a far better outcome. Instead they were too busy protecting their own little empires and pissant clubs like South Adelaide and West Torrens instead of looking at the big picture. Well the big picture is those pissant clubs are now in a far, far worse position and their pissant Victorian D grade equivalents are playing in a National Football League.

 

[The_Wookie]

I still think Max Basheer and whoever was his WA counter part have a huge amount to answer for. Basheer is lauded as some kind of hero in SA where in actual fact he's a ******* moron. Him and his WA and possibly Tasmanian counterpart should have been feverishly working to get a better outcome and national representation in a truly national league, one where there was a not disproportionate balance of power. Together the 3 other football states could have taken on Victoria and designed a far better outcome. Instead they were too busy protecting their own little empires and pissant clubs like South Adelaide and West Torrens instead of looking at the big picture. Well the big picture is those pissant clubs are now in a far, far worse position and their pissant Victorian D grade equivalents are playing in a National Football League.

To be fair though both leagues already had clubs trying to desert to the VFL and undermining any chance the SA/WA/Tas guys had of fighting the threat of VFL expansion. The VFL itself wasnt interested in expansion until late 1986 - and the SANFL did in fact apply to join the VFL as early as 1981 with a composite team but the VFL wasnt interested. Likewise in 1985 an NFL study recommended a joint side from Port-Norwood enter the VFL, but that didnt fly either.

By the team 1987 rolled around, the sanfl were invited when the wafl were but refused (but still registered Adelaide Football Club Inc) as they didnt believe they should pay a license fee to be part of a national competition. They also demanded no more than 14 teams in the competition at any time, which would have required the Victorians to start sacrificing their own to admit an SA side in 91. Port ruined that for them. Instead of an SA side in 1987 we got a Brisbane side based in the gold Coast (because of lobbying by Southport for a side)

One has to wonder what would have happened in the mid 80s when the VFL wasnt in expansion mode if the SANFL and WAFL at least had formed their own league type setup, taken the top teams in each league and formed their own. Im not saying it was economically feasible (for example in 1989 the VFL had an income of 30 million per annum, the SANFl and WAFL income combined was 12 million.)

And for future reference we can do without the insulting references to "pissant" clubs.

 

[Papa G]

Just shows you the difference between the Port Adelaide mentality and the rest of SA's mentality really.

 

[The_Wookie]

Oddly enough,

1989 was also the year that Footscray went broke, and Fitzroy and Footscray more or less agreed to a merger of the two clubs. This would have created the room for an Adelaide side (keeping the league to 14 teams), and possibly prevented the loss of Fitzroy in its entirely in 1996. If it wasnt for Irene chatfield and her injunction....

Im not sure that the SANFl were in a position to put a team together in 1989, 7 teams reported losses in the same year.

 

[madmug]

To be fair though both leagues already had clubs trying to desert to the VFL and undermining any chance the SA/WA/Tas guys had of fighting the threat of VFL expansion. The VFL itself wasnt interested in expansion until late 1986 - and the SANFL did in fact apply to join the VFL as early as 1981 with a composite team but the VFL wasnt interested. Likewise in 1985 an NFL study recommended a joint side from Port-Norwood enter the VFL, but that didnt fly either.

By the team 1987 rolled around, the sanfl were invited when the wafl were but refused (but still registered Adelaide Football Club Inc) as they didnt believe they should pay a license fee to be part of a national competition. They also demanded no more than 14 teams in the competition at any time, which would have required the Victorians to start sacrificing their own to admit an SA side in 91. Port ruined that for them. Instead of an SA side in 1987 we got a Brisbane side based in the gold Coast (because of lobbying by Southport for a side)

One has to wonder what would have happened in the mid 80s when the VFL wasnt in expansion mode if the SANFL and WAFL at least had formed their own league type setup, taken the top teams in each league and formed their own. Im not saying it was economically feasible (for example in 1989 the VFL had an income of 30 million per annum, the SANFl and WAFL income combined was 12 million.)

And for future reference we can do without the insulting references to "pissant" clubs.

Well you certainly hit the nail on the head when you mention the license fee situation. That just shows the VFL need for cash at that time. The criticism aimed at SA/WA interests is short sighted when you consider the real historic ad hoc process of how this AFL evolved.

The AFL wasnt a fair unbiased process. If they had the aim of developing a national competition the way they did it was demeaning, arrogant & simply supported Victorian clubs who should never have been in it.
Some honesty all 'round at the time would have helped. Allowing applications that could have been assessed on certain criteria would have given us a true & balanced national competition.

The AFL could now be something like Vic 8 , WA 2, SA2, Syd 1, Bris 1, Canberra 1 Tas 1, back in 1986. Expanded by the late 90's/2000 with GC & GWS by now well eatablished. & maybe looking more strongly at FNQ & WA 3 by now.

But no. That just too easy.
I know hind site is easy, but the self interest in all this by maintaining this inequity, mainly by the VFL, is pathetic & very poor for the overall health of the game.

 

[The_Wookie]

Well you certainly hit the nail on the head when you mention the license fee situation. That just shows the VFL need for cash at that time. The criticism aimed at SA/WA interests is short sighted when you consider the real historic ad hoc process of how this AFL evolved.

The AFL wasnt a fair unbiased process. If they had the aim of developing a national competition the way they did it was demeaning, arrogant & simply supported Victorian clubs who should never have been in it.
Some honesty all 'round at the time would have helped. Allowing applications that could have been assessed on certain criteria would have given us a true & balanced national competition.

The AFL could now be something like Vic 8 , WA 2, SA2, Syd 1, Bris 1, Canberra 1 Tas 1, back in 1986. Expanded by the late 90's/2000 with GC & GWS by now well eatablished. & maybe looking more strongly at FNQ & WA 3 by now.

But no. That just too easy.
I know hind site is easy, but the self interest in all this by maintaining this inequity, mainly by the VFL, is pathetic & very poor for the overall health of the game.

people keep going on and on about the license fee situation like it was the be all and end all of the expansion policy. It wasnt. it was a part of it, but the same year the license fees were paid by the WA and Qld sides, the league received 6 million from its new tv rights deal with 7 - up from 3 million the year before - and Id argue that the 30 million over 5 years paid by that counts for more than the 8 million from the license fees in a single hit.

Honesty at the time? The VFL said point blank that they werent interested in expansion. The appointment of the VFL Commission, after the agitation from some of the larger clubs at the time - changed all that in 1986.

As for Canberra and Tasmania - not a single source Ive found says anything about those two even being a remote consideration for a VFL side. Id be delighted if there was a source, im not saying there isnt one.

 

[madmug]

people keep going on and on about the license fee situation like it was the be all and end all of the expansion policy. It wasnt. it was a part of it, but the same year the license fees were paid by the WA and Qld sides, the league received 6 million from its new tv rights deal with 7 - up from 3 million the year before - and Id argue that the 30 million over 5 years paid by that counts for more than the 8 million from the license fees in a single hit.

Honesty at the time? The VFL said point blank that they werent interested in expansion. The appointment of the VFL Commission, after the agitation from some of the larger clubs at the time - changed all that in 1986.

As for Canberra and Tasmania - not a single source Ive found says anything about those two even being a remote consideration for a VFL side. Id be delighted if there was a source, im not saying there isnt one.

Yes but I bet you the VFL used the idea of expanded reach & TV audience with sides in WA, SA, Bris & the Swans in order to leverage the rise in TV rights $$.

I was told years ago by an old Tassie Footy administrator who said that the TFL were strongly interested in being in the VFL back in the very early 1980's. They had a view to expanding the North Hobart Oval as the building on the side of the ground were available to be purchased & the plan was to expand the ground to a better VFL size. They also had seen a proposal to build stands at the already MCG sized KGV Oval in the northern suburbs. (The proposal for the showground redevelopment came a few years later).

The fly in the ointment was the Tasmanian government who apparently werent interested in helping at that time. Short sighted compared to now, (or aware of the northern Tasmanian political mafia )

You can probably find stuff about ground development proposals for North Hobart, KGV & the Showgrounds. In council records I suppose. All was spoken about between about 1981 until after Bellerive oval development started in 1986 & York Park/Aurora in 2000 with a liberal party election promise for the seat of Bass in 1998.

That old gentleman said they actually met with Allen Aylett back in around 1982, he decribed a set of plans for a VFL standard ground for KGV, That was also shown to BoB Hawke when he was to become PM.
He did say he also had seen the North Hobart proposal but didnt know where those plans had got to. He said Allen Aylett from the VFL came over to meet with the TFL gentlemen & was very positive about the whole idea of a Tassie VFL team, which ever ground was developed.
The Hobart city council & state government werent up to pushing the idea for some reason Maybe short sighted or political crap behind the scenes.

Anyway thats the gist of it from this end that was relayed to me, & others I'm sure.

 

[The_Wookie]

Yes but I bet you the VFL used the idea of expanded reach & TV audience with sides in WA, SA, Bris & the Swans in order to leverage the rise in TV rights $$.

I was told years ago by an old Tassie Footy administrator who said that the TFL were strongly interested in being in the VFL back in the very early 1980's. They had a view to expanding the North Hobart Oval as the building on the side of the ground were available to be purchased & the plan was to expand the ground to a better VFL size. They also had seen a proposal to build stands at the already MCG sized KGV Oval in the northern suburbs. (The proposal for the showground redevelopment came a few years later).

The fly in the ointment was the Tasmanian government who apparently werent interested in helping at that time. Short sighted compared to now, (or aware of the northern Tasmanian political mafia )

You can probably find stuff about ground development proposals for North Hobart, KGV & the Showgrounds. In council records I suppose. All was spoken about between about 1981 until after Bellerive oval development started in 1986 & York Park/Aurora in 2000 with a liberal party election promise for the seat of Bass in 1998.

That old gentleman said they actually met with Allen Aylett back in around 1982, he decribed a set of plans for a VFL standard ground for KGV, That was also shown to BoB Hawke when he was to become PM.
He did say he also had seen the North Hobart proposal but didnt know where those plans had got to. He said Allen Aylett from the VFL came over to meet with the TFL gentlemen & was very positive about the whole idea of a Tassie VFL team, which ever ground was developed.
The Hobart city council & state government werent up to pushing the idea for some reason Maybe short sighted or political crap behind the scenes.

Anyway thats the gist of it from this end that was relayed to me, & others I'm sure.

At the end of 1986 Channel 7 offered 2.7 million a reduction of $600,000 on the rights despite the upcoming expansion, which is why the AFL ended up going with broadcom, and by extension, the ABC. By the end of 1987, Seven were offering 9 million to buy the rights back.

I might take another look at the tasmanian thing and see what i can turn up.

 

[madmug]

At the end of 1986 Channel 7 offered 2.7 million a reduction of $600,000 on the rights despite the upcoming expansion, which is why the AFL ended up going with broadcom, and by extension, the ABC. By the end of 1987, Seven were offering 9 million to buy the rights back.

I might take another look at the tasmanian thing and see what i can turn up.

I think One should take the writings from 'AFL' with a grain of salt. The 'history' written by its winners is often done with a tinge of poetic license.
Anyway, over the years I have been lucky to get to talk to a number of old administrators & supporters about footy in Tassie going back to before WW2.
I believe the stuff about the VFL efforts is true. The AFL wouldnt even acknowledge anything like that.

Probably my favorite footy story is when I met some old North Hobart supporters who were involved in trying to get the goal post from the famous Wynyard v North Hobart state final in 1967 onto the train back to Hobart. After Wynyard supporters ripped it down to stop a North Hobart player kicking the winning goal, the North Hobart lads carried it out of the ground & down to the train station to slide it through the windows. The station master in Burnie wouldnt let the train leave until they removed it!

Now that IS history.

 

[The_Wookie]

I think One should take the writings from 'AFL' with a grain of salt. The 'history' written by its winners is often done with a tinge of poetic license.
Anyway, over the years I have been lucky to get to talk to a number of old administrators & supporters about footy in Tassie going back to before WW2.
I believe the stuff about the VFL efforts is true. The AFL wouldnt even acknowledge anything like that.

Probably my favorite footy story is when I met some old North Hobart supporters who were involved in trying to get the goal post from the famous Wynyard v North Hobart state final in 1967 onto the train back to Hobart. After Wynyard supporters ripped it down to stop a North Hobart player kicking the winning goal, the North Hobart lads carried it out of the ground & down to the train station to slide it through the windows. The station master in Burnie wouldnt let the train leave until they removed it!

Now that IS history.

I dont rely solely on AFl sources. There are any number of sources available that deal with the VFL during that period. Its just that none of them seem to rate Tasmanian efforts to join the league worth a mention that I can recall.

 

[telsor]

24 hours back, I asked for people to step out from their vested interests and propose something to increase the equity of the league that wasn't self serving. Seems that was impossible, which, in itself, I think it was instructive. The VFL expanded and built a national league, and while it's not as fair and equitable as it could be, it's a hell of a lot better than it would have been if left to attitudes like this.

When your only thoughts about achiving balance is 'gimme gimme gimme' and 'hurt them', you're really not going to be taken seriously.

I said a few pages back that my main interest here was calling people on their bullshit. If you can't at least look at and consider the other side of an argument, then really, everything you say is bullshit.

 

[madmug]

24 hours back, I asked for people to step out from their vested interests and propose something to increase the equity of the league that wasn't self serving. Seems that was impossible, which, in itself, I think it was instructive. The VFL expanded and built a national league, and while it's not as fair and equitable as it could be, it's a hell of a lot better than it would have been if left to attitudes like this.

When your only thoughts about achiving balance is 'gimme gimme gimme' and 'hurt them', you're really not going to be taken seriously.

I said a few pages back that my main interest here was calling people on their bullshit. If you can't at least look at and consider the other side of an argument, then really, everything you say is bullshit.

You are a very ordinary troll.
Your argument above is totally confused. You are effectively are asking how we would improve the league, but without changing anything.
I resent the abuse by saying everything other than what you say is bullshit.
Thats a very poor way to develop a topic, or indeed to gain any respect for your discussion.

 

[The_Wookie]

You are a very ordinary troll.
Your argument above is totally confused. You are effectively are asking how we would improve the league, but without changing anything.
I resent the abuse by saying everything other than what you say is bullshit.
Thats a very poor way to develop a topic, or indeed to gain any respect for your discussion.

Theres been a fair bit of this approach from both the pro-vics and the anti-vics in this thread. Im inclined to lock the thread if this continues.

 

[telsor]

You are a very ordinary troll.
Your argument above is totally confused. You are effectively are asking how we would improve the league, but without changing anything.
I resent the abuse by saying everything other than what you say is bullshit.
Thats a very poor way to develop a topic, or indeed to gain any respect for your discussion.

Actually, I decided the topic wasn't developing, so tried to take a different tack by suggesting people come up with something from a different perspective.

You responded with another rant about how it was all Victoria's fault.


Improving fairness isn't necessarily dragging others you perceive to be ahead of you back. That you can't see that is why this 'discussion' is at an impass.

 

[Kwality]

Theres been a fair bit of this approach from both the pro-vics and the anti-vics in this thread. Im inclined to lock the thread if this continues.

Where on topic the so called anti Vic argument is a fairer share of the games or the clubs
whereas
the pro Vic is we are OK Jack, give us your money & your players & do as you are told when we tell you.

Equalization is clearly about money for the pro Vics, nothing else - I suggest its an opportunity to reduce some losses by moving games out of Vic & providing the WA market (with pent up unsatisfied demand) with extra games. If & when other States replicate the conditions in WA, the AFL should consider further adjusting the FIXture to reflect the conditions.

 

[Kwality]

I think One should take the writings from 'AFL' with a grain of salt. The 'history' written by its winners is often done with a tinge of poetic license.
Anyway, over the years I have been lucky to get to talk to a number of old administrators & supporters about footy in Tassie going back to before WW2.
I believe the stuff about the VFL efforts is true. The AFL wouldnt even acknowledge anything like that.

Probably my favorite footy story is when I met some old North Hobart supporters who were involved in trying to get the goal post from the famous Wynyard v North Hobart state final in 1967 onto the train back to Hobart. After Wynyard supporters ripped it down to stop a North Hobart player kicking the winning goal, the North Hobart lads carried it out of the ground & down to the train station to slide it through the windows. The station master in Burnie wouldnt let the train leave until they removed it!

Now that IS history.

Got the Linnell book? Written by a Victorian, it best summarises the era
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=S_GBPQAACAAJ&dq=Linnell AFL&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UNB4UuqYNY31iQfah4HYDg&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA

As I recall Tas wasn't in consideration - no private owner, no cash were considered problems.

 

[The_Wookie]

Ill be backing off moderation of this particular thread and have enlisted the aid of the mainboard team to use their judgement.

 

[Rob]

Equalization is clearly about money for the pro Vics, nothing else

Yeah, that's not entirely true anymore. The AFL probably foresee ongoing problems with GWS and to a lesser extent the Suns and they deserve, at least initially, to be in the same boat as a few Victorian clubs.

 

[The_Wookie]

Where on topic the so called anti Vic argument is a fairer share of the games or the clubs
whereas
the pro Vic is we are OK Jack, give us your money & your players & do as you are told when we tell you.

Equalization is clearly about money for the pro Vics, nothing else - I suggest its an opportunity to reduce some losses by moving games out of Vic & providing the WA market (with pent up unsatisfied demand) with extra games. If & when other States replicate the conditions in WA, the AFL should consider further adjusting the FIXture to reflect the conditions.

It simply helps the argument that the majority of money, ratings, memberships and attendances in the game is tied to victoria. The issue at the moment is that in Victoria its too heavily skewed towards the bigger clubs and not enough towards the smaller clubs. Thats what equalisation will bring. The begining of this can be seen in next years fixture with the Pies and Blues receiving less FTA coverage which in turn makes clubs like North more likeable to sponsors on account of the greater visibility they'll receive from more FTA coverage and better timeslots.

This can be achieved in Victoria without sending Victorian clubs to play in well established AFL territory that receives a game every week during the season. Games going to Cairns, Canberra, Darwin, Alice Springs and Tasmania are good sense in that they currently do not have sides or other AFL exposure of their own, and they are paid well for it.

Its taken a long time for the commission to wake up, but I think were going to see that they might be a little serious about it as this current broadcast rights deal winds down in 2016.

 

[The_Wookie]

Yeah, that's not entirely true anymore. The AFL probably foresee ongoing problems with GWS and to a lesser extent the Suns and they deserve, at least initially, to be in the same boat as a few Victorian clubs.

Brisbane and Port as well. Sydney are still not exactly generating massive amounts of profit either.