The introduction of GWS \ Gold Coast

[Toorak 108]

IMO the AFL has made a major mistake in the way they introduced these teams into the competition.

Why has the AFL introduced these team at the detriment of all teams in the bottom half of the competition?

If you planning to introduce new clubs into the competition shouldn't you be propping them up at the expense of the most successful clubs? Seems painfully obvious to me!

[Redleg 41,619]

IMO the AFL has made a major mistake in the way they introduced these teams into the competition.

Why has the AFL introduced these team at the detriment of all teams in the bottom half of the competition?

If you planning to introduce new clubs into the competition shouldn't you be propping them up at the expense of the most successful clubs? Seems painfully obvious to me!

That is an interesting point you raise. If you firstly look at the mentioned targets of GWS being Davis - Crows, Scully - Dees, Clark - Lions, Palmer - Dockers and Ward - Dogs, by season's end all of these clubs will be in the bottom half of the ladder. Result, the gap between top and bottom grows. Second, by giving masses of draft picks and Under 17 year olds to GC and GWS you stifle the recovery of the bottom clubs for years, result many more blowout games to come and a boring competition. Third by not protecting clubs young players especially developing clubs like Dees and Crows with Scully and Davis you rob these clubs of hope, membership, maybe sponsorship, on field ability and again cause blowouts. Picks will not solve the loss of star players with 2 years under their belts. This has been a poorly thought strategy by the AFL and in my eyes they stand condemned for a failure to protect the AFL brand.

[Sir Why You Little 37,173]

It has made the job of the MFC improving about a 100 times harder in the next 20 years.

Even if we get our culture right. Diluting the talent pool, with the majority going to 2 clubs out of 18.

Carlton's Salary Cap penalties cost them close on 10 years...We have effectively agreed to the same thing.

AFL is in a bit of strife.

[Redleg 41,619]

Thrashings.

Read in conjunction with my earlier Post 2.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Redleg

[Sir Why You Little 37,173]

Thrashings.

Yep and it will only get worse next year...Come to Melbourne next year Mick and help us get strong.....

Edited August 7, 2011 by why you little

[H_T 3,049]

GWS being Davis - Crows, Scully - Dees, Clark - Lions, Palmer - Dockers and Ward - Dogs, by season's end all of these clubs will be in the bottom half of the ladder. Result, the gap between top and bottom grows.

Gold Coast pick-ups:

Gary Ablett - Geelong (top 4)

Michael Rischitelli - Brisbane (near bottom)

Jared Brennan - Brisbane (near bottom)

Nathan Krakouer - Port Adelaide (near bottom)

Nathan Bock - Adelaide (mid lower table)

Campbell Brown - Hawthorn (top 8)

Jarrod Harbrow - Western Bulldogs (then top 4)

Josh Fraser - Collingwood (Top 2)

[Redleg 41,619]

Gold Coast pick-ups:

Gary Ablett - Geelong (top 4)

Michael Rischitelli - Brisbane (near bottom)

Jared Brennan - Brisbane (near bottom)

Nathan Krakouer - Port Adelaide (near bottom)

Nathan Bock - Adelaide (mid lower table)

Campbell Brown - Hawthorn (top 8)

Jarrod Harbrow - Western Bulldogs (then top 4)

Josh Fraser - Collingwood (top 2)

That was more responsible IMO. Brennan was traded, Bock at end of career, Krakouer no star, no one under 22 and no number 1 pick.

[Captain Jack Jordan 32]

Do you think that perhaps the players may leave GC and Giants after a couple of years also?

The push will be for players to join clubs with "the window open" list wise .

If we keep the troops together for a bit we may endure .

Or am I being naive about the evil empire?

[titan_uranus 25,046]

Try thinking long term people.

Yes, in the short term there were always going to be problems and difficulties associated with bringing in two clubs in two years. Drafts were going to be 'compromised' (or at least affected), players were going to leave their clubs in search of money (and/or new opportunities), and the new sides were going to be afforded luxuries not afforded to struggling existing clubs like us.

But the AFL would be derelict in its duty to its fans, clubs, members and players, if it didn't take steps towards enhancing the sport and building the league into a superior competition. Expanding the game into uncharted territories is part of this.

Those who don't like the process conveniently ignore the benefits that are likely to arise from the expansion. For one, if AFL is the game of choice in Western Sydney and the Gold Coast, the talent pool expands. We get more players to choose from, and potentially greater diversity in those players. Whether or not this actually happens will, clearly, depend on the success of these new sides and how they are perceived in the opinions of the residents of these areas. If they struggle over their first 3-5 years, it won't work. The AFL thus has a duty to ensure these clubs start strong and do not fold upon being created. If this means salary cap benefits, draft concessions, the ability to sign uncontracted played, so be it.

If AFL becomes a stronger sport in NSW and Queensland, the financial benefit to the AFL is obvious. So whilst it may seem that right now the AFL is foregoing Melbourne, Port Adelaide, the Dogs, Richmond etc. (an argument i disagree with), in the long run there will be more money to go round as a result of the expansion. Again, people fail to see the wood for the trees and bleat about a supposed bias towards the new sides.

To expect the AFL to sit on its hands indefinitely and just let the game continue as is is naive and silly. Expansion was always going to occur, and is in the best interests of anyone involved with AFL. The long term benefits will outweigh the short term costs.

[Redleg 41,619]

Try thinking long term people.

Yes, in the short term there were always going to be problems and difficulties associated with bringing in two clubs in two years. Drafts were going to be 'compromised' (or at least affected), players were going to leave their clubs in search of money (and/or new opportunities), and the new sides were going to be afforded luxuries not afforded to struggling existing clubs like us.

But the AFL would be derelict in its duty to its fans, clubs, members and players, if it didn't take steps towards enhancing the sport and building the league into a superior competition. Expanding the game into uncharted territories is part of this.

Those who don't like the process conveniently ignore the benefits that are likely to arise from the expansion. For one, if AFL is the game of choice in Western Sydney and the Gold Coast, the talent pool expands. We get more players to choose from, and potentially greater diversity in those players. Whether or not this actually happens will, clearly, depend on the success of these new sides and how they are perceived in the opinions of the residents of these areas. If they struggle over their first 3-5 years, it won't work. The AFL thus has a duty to ensure these clubs start strong and do not fold upon being created. If this means salary cap benefits, draft concessions, the ability to sign uncontracted played, so be it.

If AFL becomes a stronger sport in NSW and Queensland, the financial benefit to the AFL is obvious. So whilst it may seem that right now the AFL is foregoing Melbourne, Port Adelaide, the Dogs, Richmond etc. (an argument i disagree with), in the long run there will be more money to go round as a result of the expansion. Again, people fail to see the wood for the trees and bleat about a supposed bias towards the new sides.

To expect the AFL to sit on its hands indefinitely and just let the game continue as is is naive and silly. Expansion was always going to occur, and is in the best interests of anyone involved with AFL. The long term benefits will outweigh the short term costs.

You have missed the point. The argument is not about expansion but rather the type of player that could be stolen and club from which the theft is enacted.

[Triple Jack 13]

That was more responsible IMO. Brennan was traded, Bock at end of career, Krakouer no star, no one under 22 and no number 1 pick.

Well There is a no.1 pick but he is well passed his use by, Josh Fraser

[volders 22]

Why would a Dale Thomas or a Marc Murphy leave there club when they are in a premiership window? It's not like they've gone out of their way to target the bottom teams, it's just easier to persuade players that are unlikely to be winning a premiership in the short term future to move clubs, especially when there is a lot of money involved. Someone had to suffer to bring new teams into the league, it's just unfortunate for teams that are bottoming out now. Be thankful we are not in PAs shoes... and have already topped up on a lot of talent.

[Nasher 33,617]

and no number 1 pick.

Fraser?

[Guest hangon007]

IMO the AFL has made a major mistake in the way they introduced these teams into the competition.

Why has the AFL introduced these team at the detriment of all teams in the bottom half of the competition?

If you planning to introduce new clubs into the competition shouldn't you be propping them up at the expense of the most successful clubs? Seems painfully obvious to me!

Yip no doubt about it history is going to repeat itself ... who are the next South Melbourne & Fitzroy?

Teams in Victoria will have to go.

Edited August 7, 2011 by hangon007

[Redleg 41,619]

Well There is a no.1 pick but he is well passed his use by, Josh Fraser

He was traded not stolen, and at the end of his career not the beginning.

[titan_uranus 25,046]

You have missed the point. The argument is not about expansion but rather the type of player that could be stolen and club from which the theft is enacted.

No I haven't. You're worried about the negative impact on existing clubs the expansion will have. I'm saying that there will be short term pains for all 16 clubs as we bring in the two newbies, but the long term benefits to the AFL, which will spill over to the clubs, will be strong.

[Guest hangon007]

No I haven't. You're worried about the negative impact on existing clubs the expansion will have. I'm saying that there will be short term pains for all 16 clubs as we bring in the two newbies, but the long term benefits to the AFL, which will spill over to the clubs, will be strong.

If you survive. Teams wont.

[titan_uranus 25,046]

If you survive. Teams wont.

I forgot. You actually think the AFL wants to see its clubs die.

I assume you also think Demetriou wants a league consisting of Gold Coast, GWS, Collingwood, Essendon and Carlton.

If you actually think the AFL wants, or will allow, clubs to simply die, you are either stupid (possible), naive (likely), overly-pessimistic (definitely) or all three.

The AFL is not going let clubs die to allow the new clubs to exist. That would defeat the purpose of creating the new clubs (that purpose being to grow and develop the sport and the AFL).

[John Crow Batty 8,879]

I'm not too worried about these "just add water" instant footy clubs. They lack a soul and 150+years continuity of history and support as with us. Their survival is exclusively dependant on lots of freebies from the AFL. A severe economic crisis or downturn in AFL stocks will see support for them evaporate quickly. If the cash dried up then they will just go "poof" into the air. I'm sure if we were in a crisis our die hard supporters would rally as they did with Debt Demolition and we will survive even if we have to bottom feed longer than we expected. All we need now is some bloody good coaches and admin to lift this club out of the doldrums. Lack of long term success has seen our stocks dwindle significantly but there is a hell of a lot of latent support out there that will materialise when we start to get some genuine on field success whenever it happens.

Edited August 7, 2011 by america de cali

[Sir Why You Little 37,173]

No I haven't. You're worried about the negative impact on existing clubs the expansion will have. I'm saying that there will be short term pains for all 16 clubs as we bring in the two newbies, but the long term benefits to the AFL, which will spill over to the clubs, will be strong.

Tu you say the AFL wants all clubs to survive? Fair enough maybe they do...BUT in what condition do you expect the bottom 6-8 clubs to be in?

From what i saw yesterday it is going to be a long long road ahead of the MFC, and meanwhile those top clubs continue to thrive

[jnrmac 20,189]

Carlton's Salary Cap penalties cost them close on 10 years...We have effectively agreed to the same thing.

OUr salary cap penalties cost about the same.

[jnrmac 20,189]

Try thinking long term people.

I have been thinking long term for the past 47 years you muppet. That's long enough!

[Sir Why You Little 37,173]

OUr salary cap penalties cost about the same.

Can't agree with that, We got a punch but nowhere near as big as Carlscum.

[titan_uranus 25,046]

Tu you say the AFL wants all clubs to survive? Fair enough maybe they do...BUT in what condition do you expect the bottom 6-8 clubs to be in?

From what i saw yesterday it is going to be a long long road ahead of the MFC, and meanwhile those top clubs continue to thrive

That's the point of what I was saying. There will be some hard times for the bottom clubs over the next few years. But all clubs go through troughs at stages. In the end the pain suffered now will translate into a stronger and more commercially viable game in the future, which all clubs will benefit from.

[Sir Why You Little 37,173]

That's the point of what I was saying. There will be some hard times for the bottom clubs over the next few years. But all clubs go through troughs at stages. In the end the pain suffered now will translate into a stronger and more commercially viable game in the future, which all clubs will benefit from.

i am not so sure about that. Once the $$$ get to big it is just too hard to climb...which is why the debt demolition should continue to be open.