It occurred to me upon hearing of the plight of the pups that there might be a ready made asnswer of sorts that might not only satisfy them, the AFL but other states and concerned teams.

The AFL is so keen to inflict a team upon West Sydney ( and all this despite sound locic to the contrary ) and this whilst another team of the West ( Melourne ) is struggling and essentially donning lips and taking to the street , any street in order to sell itslef for a game or two.

What if the Western Bulldogs , already with a name not limiting itself to Melbourne only becomes an ambassador of sorts and plays say half a dozen home games out of Homebush or where ever and get paid by the AFL to do so. This would solve the conundrum of an AFL presence in Sydney without really paying top dollar.. It would solve the Doggies financial woes too. This would free up a spot to enable a Tassie team to slide in to assume the 18th licence..and they would have to be happy with that as would be many other teams and fans sympathetic to their cause.

A bonus would be far less members for Hawthorn and less dollars too !! I have no problem with that

sort of win win win they lose...all good

Is this just a tad too simple ??

It's a great idea in theory and I find it extremely logical but the AFL want something more permanent and I don't see the doggies relocating.

I see it as a workable version of getting what the AFL want.. some sort of presence in Sydneys west.. I cant see a stand alone ever getting off the ground for 20 years...if then.

In this manner the AFL can truly test the waters and see if all their rhetoric stands scrutiny. If it doesnt.. such is life..You stil have a workable competition

Is this just a tad too simple ??

Probably. But then, the best ideas are often the simplest. Your idea has merit, but can't see it happening.

As far as I am concerned, the Western Sydney team has disaster written all over it.

I don't know why the AFL just doesn't establish the Swans out in the western suburbs of Sydney. Would make the most sense, instead of brining in another team that will take decades to become viable if it ever does. The Swans are still being propped up after 27 years up there. How long is a Western Sydney 'franchise' going to take?

Don't like it.

I see it as a workable version of getting what the AFL want.. some sort of presence in Sydneys west.. I cant see a stand alone ever getting off the ground for 20 years...if then.

In this manner the AFL can truly test the waters and see if all their rhetoric stands scrutiny. If it doesnt.. such is life..You stil have a workable competition

Agree with everything you say; no way in hell a west Sydney team is viable......possibly ever. The Sydney Swans are still battling and they've been up there for ages. I don't buy the "it'll give the swans a rivalry" line either as they all say the same thing about another soccer team in Melbourne which wouldn't make me more or less inclined to go.

As I said your idea makes perfect sense but unfortunately logic and common sense are a rare commodity at AFLHQ on this issue.

no way will this happen... we sell games interstate too... how would we feel if we played 6 of our home games interstate? wouldn't be too impressed I wouldn't think... neither would the bulldogs... plus the AFL wouldn't be satisfied with this arrangement long term, as they want west sydney to have its own side...

unless the dogs are about to go Bankrupt, this is no chance of happening...

no way will this happen... we sell games interstate too... how would we feel if we played 6 of our home games interstate? wouldn't be too impressed I wouldn't think... neither would the bulldogs... plus the AFL wouldn't be satisfied with this arrangement long term, as they want west sydney to have its own side...

unless the dogs are about to go Bankrupt, this is no chance of happening...

Let us Remember. The Bulldogs Signed the Deal with Telstra Dome as did North Melbourne. Why did someone not smell a financial Rat back then. I am sure the accountants had access to the deals, or did Wayne Jackson & co just talk sweet to them pointing a Gun "Sign ze Papers Old Man"

These clubs will not survive 2 years with the stadium deals as they are.

And what's with knocking back the MCC. Looked very Fair to me considering the debt they must carry.

Sadly the Dogs & Kangas may not have a choice in there future outcomes if there is not quick agreements.

These sort of ideas annoy the crap out of me. Just like us, the Doggies are a Melbourne team and should always remain a Melbourne team. If you must have a West Sydney side, the AFL should make one off their own back, not at the expense of another club.

Let us Remember. The Bulldogs Signed the Deal with Telstra Dome as did North Melbourne. Why did someone not smell a financial Rat back then. I am sure the accountants had access to the deals, or did Wayne Jackson & co just talk sweet to them pointing a Gun "Sign ze Papers Old Man"

Obviously, no one saw it as a potential financial abyss. Let's not forget, that the 'powerhouse' Essendon football club also signed a deal there.

I don't think the OP is suggesting that the doggies relocate - more just that they set up a permanent arrangement to play a few games a year in Sydney. Exactly like Hawthorn do in Tassie.

Smorgon has said publicly this week that the doggies have a few home games that they are keen to sell - so why not play 3 or 4 home games a year in Sydney, against Sydney and other interstate clubs that would draw low crowds at the Dome anyway.

Wouldn't want it to be more than 4 games a year though otherwise they risk alienating their Melbourne members.

But the AFL want a team in Sydney so that is what will happen.

Just out of curiosity - does ANYONE here think that the GC17, WS18 will be successful and will develop a strong support base in their home states? Because apart from AFL employees I don't think anyone else does...

Theoretically BB, it's not a bad idea. If there is any doubt at all with regard to a permanent move of AFL into West Sydney, this is an alternative. AT least this way the AFL could drip feed Western Sydney with a taste of AFL before a more permanent move. Also the Bulldogs get looked after financially in the meantime and it would enable the AFL to test the waters and do the calculations on a decision or timeframe for West Sydney, without spending a whole heap of money initially with their fingers & toes crossed.

Seems more like a common sense approach. Big tick from me.

I see it as a workable version of getting what the AFL want.. some sort of presence in Sydneys west.. I cant see a stand alone ever getting off the ground for 20 years...if then.

In this manner the AFL can truly test the waters and see if all their rhetoric stands scrutiny. If it doesnt.. such is life..You stil have a workable competition

I reckon your onto something there and it's a great idea. Even if they started at say 3 games a year and slowly increased to develop a market there. And as you said it allows for a Tassie team to be the 18th side and I think we all know a Tassie team makes a lot more sense and would have a lot more supporters then West Sydney or even Gold Coast for that matter!

Just out of curiosity - does ANYONE here think that the GC17, WS18 will be successful and will develop a strong support base in their home states? Because apart from AFL employees I don't think anyone else does...

Yes.

No, not for a decade - minimum.

I think your idea is a great one BB. Minimum games at Eddiehada Stadium might mean other clubs are impacted though ...

Ed: Brain fade. Selling those games already.

Sydney already has a Bulldogs team located in the western suburbs: Canterbury Bankstown NRL club.

Wouldn't work because the dogs still need to have a homebase for training, gym, etc even if their name doesn't specify where in the west.

I'm sure the players aren't too keen on uprooting and moving to sydney, or becoming nomads for that matter.

Playing only 6 games out of homebush is a halfarsed solution. The AFL would want a team rooted in Sydney so they can develop a rivalry with the swans - rivalries garner massive interest. The act of deciding which side of the fence you sit on makes the game more meaningful as a spectator. It requires emotional investment and creates a talking point.

And I don't understand why so many people think the West Sydney team won't work - can someone please enlighten me?

These clubs will not survive 2 years with the stadium deals as they are.

And what's with knocking back the MCC. Looked very Fair to me considering the debt they must carry.

Sadly the Dogs & Kangas may not have a choice in there future outcomes if there is not quick agreements.

Those clubs will survive, the AFL has a responsibility to ensure they do.

As long as the AFL is getting paid close to $200 million a season in television rights, all the while the clubs are paying hand over fist to put on these games, and fund a stadium which will eventually end up in AFL hands, the AFL will have to subsidise clubs on the wrong end of a poor stadium deal which was negotiated and organised by them.

Obviously, no one saw it as a potential financial abyss. Let's not forget, that the 'powerhouse' Essendon football club also signed a deal there.

Essendon were the first to sign up at the Dome, & they did there Homework. The Clubs that followed were handed the Dregs, it just astounds me that nobody made noises about it at the time.

Somebody told Big lies & nobody picked it up. The outcome is still a long way off. Shareholders will always want to be paid before tenants.

The Clubs that followed were handed the Dregs, it just astounds me that nobody made noises about it at the time. Somebody told Big lies & nobody picked it up. The outcome is still a long way off. Shareholders will always want to be paid before tenants.

Presidents of both St. Kilda and the Bulldogs raised concerns in the media when they moved to the dome, or very early on in their tenancy. They were howled down by Wayne Jackson, who said they were full of it, and that Docklands was a great thing for both these clubs. It would seem he was the one who was full of it...

Presidents of both St. Kilda and the Bulldogs raised concerns in the media when they moved to the dome, or very early on in their tenancy. They were howled down by Wayne Jackson, who said they were full of it, and that Docklands was a great thing for both these clubs. It would seem he was the one who was full of it...

Yes Wayne Jackson has a Hell of a lot to answer for & should be accountable. But sadly like a dethroned Politician seems to have got away totally free & blameless.

He alone has cost Victorian clubs Millions of $$$$

Wouldn't work because the dogs still need to have a homebase for training, gym, etc even if their name doesn't specify where in the west.

I'm sure the players aren't too keen on uprooting and moving to sydney, or becoming nomads for that matter.

Playing only 6 games out of homebush is a halfarsed solution. The AFL would want a team rooted in Sydney so they can develop a rivalry with the swans - rivalries garner massive interest. The act of deciding which side of the fence you sit on makes the game more meaningful as a spectator. It requires emotional investment and creates a talking point.

And I don't understand why so many people think the West Sydney team won't work - can someone please enlighten me?

The idea per se is not of the bullies relocating..simply offering a presence. much in the same way the sqaukers do in Tassie. ut as they would settle into one "away" paid location it might in time build into a real following. Its more of a lateral notion in that ONE team can harness two locales.

Its far less halfarsed I reckon than the AFL's of actualy having a team there as it simply wont hold water. They are kidding themselves.

Here a region can if they choose adopt an exisitn team with some sort of realtionship without th ewhole shebang. You have to keep in mind that Syneysiders follow sport in a vastly different way..just ask Queen..am sure she'll vouch for that ( me hopes..lol )

By all means actually have a team in west sydney.but at VFL level..much more sensisble