The AFL has stuffed up the Western Sydney experiment

[PaulRB 6,435]

PRB -it would not work IMO for the simple reason of the loss of big dollars to clubs who were relegated would see them putting development of young players on the back burner and the focus would be on maintaining your status in the Top League.

The draft would not work and we would end up like the Premier League where the power clubs maintain a hold at the top and the smaller clubs just have mediocre sides who would keep them in the top flight

IMO we had it right with 16 teams and going to 18 stretched the resources to much, NRL is a sport for TV and I don't think we needed to try the Western Sydney experiment.

Its an interesting puzzle to see how it might work.

Just as an aside Footy is a sport, and ideally the opportunity to win should be even over time...

I suspect that for it to work the following "limits" could be used to make the competition "even" and dynamic:

• A cap on total club expenditure of say 100 million p.a.
• Allocation of funds to rich clubs reduced, poor clubs supported to 100 million level.
• Creation of geographic draft zones (to allow clubs to benefit from developing local talent) with additional funds available to develop non-Footy Zones.
• Shift 50% talent from current draft system to Zoned system (i.e. Zone picks can be taken by their parent club later in draft like current FS)

I'm sure I'm missing many factors and several will pronounce the idea lame because the EPL did this or I forgot that... My point is the current system is inequitable, restrictive and at times unwatchable (given the predictability of a game between a top four team and a bottom four team). A two tier system and a restructuring to make the flow of all teams between the two comps INEVITABLE makes for a real competition.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 17,059]

While the idea of 'zones' is attractive because of the ability for the club to work within their zone to develop a culture and support base within it, the previous experience of zoning showed that some zones just happen to better than others which consigns those clubs with inferior zones to fewer selectable players.

[PaulRB 6,435]

Agree, and it's at this level that transparent mechanisms to compensate for these differences need to be developed. I.e. more resources would be provided to augment a clubs zone development program to further develop talent in non-football states (zones) than in those areas producing most the talent...

[rpfc 28,948]

I'm sure I'm missing many factors and several will pronounce the idea lame because the EPL did this or I forgot that... My point is the current system is inequitable, restrictive and at times unwatchable (given the predictability of a game between a top four team and a bottom four team). A two tier system and a restructuring to make the flow of all teams between the two comps INEVITABLE makes for a real competition.

The current system is not the problem; a draft and salary cap regulated sport allows well-run bad teams to get better and compete against good teams. This happens in the NFL. This is starting to happen more in the NBA. This is the model to emulate.

The problem that we face at the Dees is one of our own making, it isn't the inequitable system. Look around; Freo are up, the Saints have come down with the Dogs after being up, North are about to shoot up, the rest of the teams are yo-yoing as intended, the expansion teams have confused the situation but this will settle in a short while after their players become older and they lose some of their talent (as they have already - Dom Tyson).

The MFC is the poorly run outlier.

We have made consistently bad decisions for a decade, and they have come home to roost over the last few seasons, and I am not just talking about Neeld or Cook at ND12. We failed to keep Thompson, we got Pick 5 taken from us in 1999, we retired too many and too early, we picked poorly with early choices in 01, 02, 04, 07, 08, 09, and 11, we have chosen two coaches who couldn't last, we have had distractions seemingly every year.

We do not need to implant foreign structures that will not work - we need to start (or continue as of Viney/Hogan) making better personnel decisions and properly develop players while keeping our current level of coach that we have now.

It's not the AFL - it's us.

And relegation and a league overhaul is a remedy to a problem we don't have.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 17,059]

The current system is not the problem; a draft and regulated sport allows well-run bad teams to get better and compete against good teams. This happens in the NFL. This is starting to happen more in the NBA. This is the model to emulate.

The problem that we face at the Dees is one of our own making, it isn't the inequitable system. Look around; Freo are up, the Saints have come down with the Dogs after being up, North are about to shoot up, the rest of the teams are yo-yoing as intended, the expansion teams have confused the situation but this will settle in a short while after their players become older and they lose some of their talent (as they have already - Dom Tyson).

The MFC is the poorly run outlier.

We have made consistently bad decisions for a decade, and they have come home to roost over the last few seasons, and I am not just talking about Neeld or Cook at ND12. We failed to keep Thompson, we got Pick 5 taken from us in 1999, we retired too many and too early, we picked poorly with early choices in 01, 02, 04, 07, 08, 09, and 11, we have chosen two coaches who couldn't last, we have had distractions seemingly every year.

We do not need to implant foreign structures that will not work - we need to start (or continue as of Viney/Hogan) making better personnel decisions and properly develop players while keeping our current level of coach that we have now.

It's not the AFL - it's us.

And relegation and a league overhaul is a remedy to a problem we don't have.

Agree with the above except I think you're being generous when you say "We have made consistently bad decisions for a decade." It's a lot longer than that. I'd go with half a century.

[PaulRB 6,435]

I agree with your points about the MFC, and I'm not suggesting changes to fix our problems, but to evolve the AFL into a better competition. Curious to hear how the models being used by the NBA could be applied, I don't know anything about their models...

The core issues are

1. the disparity in expenditure by clubs, until thats addressed with a spending cap the AFL will be a lob sided competition.
2. the inability for new teams to compete in the competition unless that are AFL driven Empire expansions
3. the boring one sided dead rubber nature of many games in a 18 team comp (despite the AFL trying to hide this with their new draw formulae, which only hides the disparity between the top and bottom teams).
4. an uneven draw (see above point) but this is a fundamental that all teams play all teams an equal amount to qualify for finals...

[dee-luded 2,959]

I honestly hope you are right but from my experience most people from Sydney tend to be bandwagon jumpers. GWS needs to have sustained success.

many of the strongest Ex VFL clubs origins Were from working class suburbs, & had hard tough cultures. Pies, Cats, Bombers, Tigers. strong but not necessarily successful.

working class can often be rusted on supporters. & can spend their money on para-phernalia. in psykick hope.

many of the west sydney people probably can't swim well.

I can here it Now, screaming over the western suburbs, from the public outdoor speakers every few hours, in {Rap Sheet} form, or Hip Hop @ training, "Giants, alah Giants, killem Giants, G'hard on the others".

[rpfc 28,948]

I agree with your points about the MFC, and I'm not suggesting changes to fix our problems, but to evolve the AFL into a better competition. Curious to hear how the models being used by the NBA could be applied, I don't know anything about their models...

The core issues are

1. the disparity in expenditure by clubs, until thats addressed with a spending cap the AFL will be a lob sided competition.
2. the inability for new teams to compete in the competition unless that are AFL driven Empire expansions
3. the boring one sided dead rubber nature of many games in a 18 team comp (despite the AFL trying to hide this with their new draw formulae, which only hides the disparity between the top and bottom teams).
4. an uneven draw (see above point) but this is a fundamental that all teams play all teams an equal amount to qualify for finals...

The NBA and the NFL are draft and slary cap regulated. Like the AFL. They do not have relegation or anything like it. If new markets are more promising, they will move a team or start a new one. Charlotte Hornets went to New Orleans, then Charlotte got a new startup team a few years later to give an example. Their models are just like ours and they also have pathetic games and a great lack of talent across a number of teams but it is still a thriving league and well run teams still do well. Teams in small markets with less 'expenditure by clubs' (your first point, do well if they are well run) San Antonio, Phoenix, Oakland/Bay Area, Oklahoma City, and Portland, are competing with big US markets and are doing excellently well. They make good decisions and consistently do so.

Frankly, who cares about your second point. If Tasmania, or the ACT, or (lol) Darwin wanted their own team - put forward your case and see how you go. Tassie couldn't sell it a few years ago, and have given up in the short to medium term with their deal with the Hawks and the Roos. There is no need to attempt to establish some sort of pseudo second league to cement these teams in their communities if as you say, the locals will only care about them when they go into the AFL - just chuck them straight into the AFL - if there is no tangible benefit - why bother? Plus the mechanics of their list management coming into the AFL will be similar to what we had with GC and GWS - if not, they will simply go back to this second tier league after a year.

Point number three will be exacerbated in your format, and is a symptom of any competition. There will be terrible teams playing each other to avoid punishment, great. But those teams will be in the same cycle for a generation. Every year, even before the expansion teams, there were games no-one cares about - the key is to attempt to have those teams be different every year so that not the same teams are disspiriting their fan base.

Your last point about an uneven draw is something that has been around for ages. Unless we can play 34 games, there will be no parity. How about 17 games? But that contracts the game and doesn't grow it. The NBA teams play 82 games. The NFL play 16 but have established 4-team divisions that play each other twice. There is a middle ground, compromise that pleases no-one that we will find at some point but what the AFL is doing now makes some sense. It is an issue, but an overblown one. Your solution solves this issue doesn't it? But while it solves that problem it creates a myriad of other problems that will ruin the game.

Putting your solution into practice for a recently promoted Port Melbourne:

They have taken Melbourne's spot in the AFL 1st Div. Approx. 15 of MFC's players have a contractual stiplulation that they must play in the AFL 1st Div. They are all let go. AFL rules stipluate that Port Melbourne gets first dibs to negotiate a contract. They sign the players they can currently afford as they move form a revenue stream of $2m to $25m thanks to new sponsors and AFL TV rights money (the AFL 1st Div average would be around $50m). Jones, Frawley, Trengove, Tyson, and a few other players ask for contracts that Port Melbourne can't afford. They are allowed to sign with any team that can give them that particular wage. Jones goes to Ess, Frawley to Haw, Trengove to Adel, and so forth. Glenelg is the other team promoted at the expense of St Kilda - the same thing happens to Glenelg.

Port Melbourne play Glenelg, Coll, WCE, Haw, Ess, Freo, Adel, Port Adel, Carl, Rich, and Sydney.

PM and Glenelg share the spoils between each other and lose every other game. They finish relegated, and lose their players to the Western Bulldogs, and the Brisbane Lions.

These two teams then attempt to move from a revenue stream of around $5m to $30m...

Cycle continues.

How is this a good thing to do?

[PaulRB 6,435]

Mate It's too hot to discuss a hypothetical restructuring to address flaws in the current competition, with someone intent on making it an argument (i.e. right vs wrong debate).

Happy to discuss, as I'm sure there is a creative way to improve the AFL. Just bored by arguments.

[rpfc 28,948]

Mate It's too hot to discuss a hypothetical restructuring to address flaws in the current competition, with someone intent on making it an argument (i.e. right vs wrong debate).

Happy to discuss, as I'm sure there is a creative way to improve the AFL. Just bored by arguments.

You have proposed moving to a two tiered league of 12 teams in each league with relegation and promotion.

How can I not be allowed to challenge the wisdom of that?

When is a discussion an argument? Or when is someone disagreeing with another a bully?

I am discussing it, back your argument up, because it is losing merit - not gaining it.

[PaulRB 6,435]

You can challenge what you choose.

A discussion is an argument when one of the participants puts defending their opinion and being "right" or "winning" above exploring the issue with an open mind to find a new and evolved perspective. I wasn't implying you are a bully, just that trying to have a discussion with someone who is intent on "winning" an argument is boring.

Proposing a evolution of the ALF competition with an apologist for the status quo is futile. Do you believe the current AFL competition and the way they are expanding it is without fault?

I've mentioned my criticisms of the AFL in this area, perhaps you too have some misgivings on the direction of the AFL and we could find some common ground for a constructive discussion.

[rjay 25,311]

Personally feel that the country (population) is not big enough for a 2 tiered competition. Also think like 'old dee' that the talent poole is not big enough to sustain the current 18 teams.

[PaulRB 6,435]

I was thinking about that too, and occurred that the low talent pool issue is exacerbated by where the various teams are at in terms of their cycle and the age of their key talent.

Many of the bottom 6 teams (GWS, MFC, GC, etc) are full of talented kids unable to physically compete with the older harder talented players in the Top 4 (Hawks, Cats, Swans, etc ).

If the stigma of being relegated can be put on hold for a minute, it may be that rebuilding is better done by a team cycling down to lower tier with a clear way to push back up into the top tier once their talent matures.

Is it better for the development of talent and teams to get flogged most weeks (in the A Div) or have more even matches at a lower level (B Div)?

The Progress of Viney and Hogan spending a year a Casey plus the emergence of the mature recruit (Barlow et al) and the sheer brutality of the game implies that young team and players may be better off dropping down a level to develop.

I remember someone talking about the great North team (Carey and co) was forged in the U18 or reserves prior to emerging into the AFL proper.

[Bedraggled Dee 336]

The problem in using a 2nd ter t develop talent is that thy wont retaiin the talent for long and act as feeders for the 1st tier. That can be managed somewhat with the rules but I doubt the AFLPA would accept quarantining talented youngsters int low tiered clubs for less money. Moving to a two tiered structure would IMO inevitably reult in an open market for players within the contraints of the cap. What the salry cap would look like is a whole topic on its own but it is safe to say that the competition could not support another dozen salary caps of a similar size to the existing ones

[PaulRB 6,435]

All teams in tier A and B would have to have the same resources (Player Cap and overall club expenditure Cap), so the tier B players would be on the same cap as A Div players.

A two tier League of 12 and 12 would only require 6 additional clubs to be filled out (say Tas, NT, Perth, ..?). Limits (transfer fees?) could be put on players transferring between the tiers.

I'd be curious to know what percentage of games won is between the bottom six teams (that would go into the B Div) and the top 12 teams (A Div)?

From our experience it's low (well zero).

Would it be a better experience for a fan to go and watch the team be competitive (albet at a lower level) each week as they wait for their talent to develop, or go along to the weekly floggings we've had these past years? What's better for developing the players and team?

[La Dee-vina Comedia 17,059]

Personally feel that the country (population) is not big enough for a 2 tiered competition. Also think like 'old dee' that the talent poole is not big enough to sustain the current 18 teams.

The talent pool, in theory, is the same size now as it was when the then VFL was a 12 team competition.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics the Australian population in 1986 (last year of the 12 team competition) was 15.6 million. Today, ABS estimates the population to be 23.4 million. That's a 50% increase in population - exactly the same as the competition size increase from 12 to 18 teams.

Granted, there's more sporting opportunities today for people to choose to participate in; but there's also a significantly greater financial reward to entice footballers than there was in 1986 so I expect some who would not have chosen football as a career then (because they foresaw better financial opportunities elsewhere) were lost to the game.

[rpfc 28,948]

You can challenge what you choose.

A discussion is an argument when one of the participants puts defending their opinion and being "right" or "winning" above exploring the issue with an open mind to find a new and evolved perspective. I wasn't implying you are a bully, just that trying to have a discussion with someone who is intent on "winning" an argument is boring.

Proposing a evolution of the ALF competition with an apologist for the status quo is futile. Do you believe the current AFL competition and the way they are expanding it is without fault?

I've mentioned my criticisms of the AFL in this area, perhaps you too have some misgivings on the direction of the AFL and we could find some common ground for a constructive discussion.

I am an apologist for the status quo?

What does that even pertain to?

I voice my opinion on things when they arise - I have 'bored' people with my desires to move the draft age back 3 years, abolish the rookie list, alter the FA compensation parameters, have contracts for players made unchangeable over the life of the contract, the introduction of a lottery to avoid tanking, the introduction of a competitive percentage determinator to avoid tanking, and any other half-brained idea that I put forward and defend.

But no, I am an apologist because I think your two-tiered relegation league is farcical and gave reasons why?

It's too hot for this BS.

[rpfc 28,948]

All teams in tier A and B would have to have the same resources (Player Cap and overall club expenditure Cap), so the tier B players would be on the same cap as A Div players.

A two tier League of 12 and 12 would only require 6 additional clubs to be filled out (say Tas, NT, Perth, ..?). Limits (transfer fees?) could be put on players transferring between the tiers.

I'd be curious to know what percentage of games won is between the bottom six teams (that would go into the B Div) and the top 12 teams (A Div)?

From our experience it's low (well zero).

Would it be a better experience for a fan to go and watch the team be competitive (albet at a lower level) each week as they wait for their talent to develop, or go along to the weekly floggings we've had these past years? What's better for developing the players and team?

Finally, now we are getting somewhere. Hypotheticals are fun.

I will give you the 6 teams to include: an ACT team, a Tas team, an NT team, new franchises in SA, WA, and Port Melbourne gets the nod as the most supported VFL team.

The draft would have to be run for clubs entering a season. The two promoted teams would get the two best kids and the draft continues as it normally would. After 5 Rounds of the draft (the first 60 picks) the next 60 would be assigned to the second tier.

Transfer fees seem a tad exotic for AFL fans but may be agreed to by smaller clubs. But how do you limit the big clubs from taking all the best players as they can afford the transfer fees?

[mjt 640]

Agree with the above except I think you're being generous when you say "We have made consistently bad decisions for a decade." It's a lot longer than that. I'd go with half a century.

I wouldn't the last 7 years have been unacceptable, all any supporter wants to do is get off the train at Punt Road and think your half a chance, I agree with everything RPFC says.

[rpfc 28,948]

Tier 2 will struggle to pay the cap that the Tier 1 teams would pay, if this is an actual tiered system and not side-by-side conferences like in US sports, then Tier 2 is not going to be relevant in the minds eye of people, and therefore advertisers won't pay the money that drives the league.

If the League centralises the money and divvies it out evenly to all, and if the tier 2 clubs can keep their players then we will have, essentially, two conferences of the same league, and not a tiered league.

If you would like to see an ACT, Tas, and 4 other teams to have two 12 team leagues to solve the fairness of the draw issue - then having a conference system would happily solve that conundrum.

However, with that said, the NBA has a 'made up' East/West divided conference that is now hurting the comp as the East is severely weaker than the West. 13 of the best 16 teams are from the West, but only 8 will make the playoffs (8 from each conference).

[old dee 24,018]

I wouldn't the last 7 years have been unacceptable, all any supporter wants to do is get off the train at Punt Road and think your half a chance, I agree with everything RPFC says.

That about covers it mjt with one small addition

" off the train at Jolimont"

[Bombay Airconditioning 6,477]

Rugby League should consider a second Melbourne team, but should definitely get a second team in Brisbane and in Auckland. That would get them teams in Sydney, Newcastle, Brisbane, Melbourne, Gold Coast, Townsville, Auckland, Wellington and they should cover Wollongong and Gosford as well. The combined populations if they get interest will sustain the game.

Sydney might have the games on TV but GWS means people are actually going to watch at least some of them. It's vital for Foxtel who have heaps of subscriptions in Sydney and have most of the AFL games on Fox Footy as well as channel 7. League is a good game for TV, very suited for TV watching where as footy is decent on TV but way better live which in some way explains crowds. The ease of getting to the MCG/Etihad and getting big games helps explains footy crowds.

The other reason the AFL needs a bigger presence in Sydney is using the population for talent. Stuff all talent gets drafted from the state of NSW. To sustain 20 teams but even 18 good ones we need more talent.

The point you make with regards to the talent pool is a good one, something I hadn't considered.

League is a good came for tv because of the games structures, but it's all they seem to be able to get their heads around. I've often asked league fans why doesn't someone kick on the 3rd or 4th and try and catch the opposition off guard. They look at me like I'm stupid. Until the backs start to throw the ball around its so bloody predictable. They struggle to sell out finals, their passion isn't anything like ours. Manly Sea Eagles were required to play some of their home games away from Brookvale(their home ground/boutique stadium)and play at the SFS when playing some of the bigger league clubs so that more supporters from the opposition could attend. The die hard Manly supporters refused to travel the measley distance in protest. It's like Geelong supporters refusing to watch games at Etihad or the G.

I'm not willing GWS to fail, but I think they will struggle for years to come. I don't think some people up here fully understand the tactics or lack there off in their own game let alone try and follow ours. But they are there now, and there to stay. Any talk of further expansion or multi tier leauges, should remain just that. As has been mentioned before, the squeeze of ten clubs in Victoria might force one into the Apple Isle.

[Bombay Airconditioning 6,477]

Al. if there is one thing that is certain in business, change will happen. You either grow or contract one or the other. The key is make continualy change without taking un-nessecary risks. GWS IMO is not a great risk. The AFL have enough cash to pump in to ensure they dont start with an unmanageable debt. They have put in place draft concessions that will eventually provide GWS with a very strong side allbeit later than the AFL would have wanted. I assume the stadium deals the AFL have brokered for GWS means they will make a quid with small crowds and I am sure that the record media rights deal the AFL acheived was on the back of exposure to this huge market.

To expand and grow the competition needs to gain greater market share in Sydney and the only way is get more sides there (The same is true for the NRL, they need to expand into Melbourne). Other options like ACT, NT and Tas would have been looked at but ACT is not big enough even if the team was marketed as a central Australia side and include Albury/Wodonga and Wagga etc, NT is relatvely small and isolated and Tas is small and has the North/South divide. If you compare the potential returns Sydney would be a mile in front.

If people dont agree with the Sydney expansion I would be interested to hear what decisions the AFL should have made to grow the competition.

You make some really good points, and I understand all arguments for and against. I can't add much more than what I have written in my previous post.