On 14/01/2014 at 01:04, PaulRB said:

Given the money in the game I'd suggest the opportunity the AFL are missing is to create a vibrant second division of teams and create an opportunity for the ACT, Hobart, Launceston, Darwin, Auckland, North Shore, etc... and the pick of the independent teams from the state comps (i.e. Williamstown, Glenelg, etc... ?) to play in a AFL National second division.

This would explore and allow these teams to develop their markets, develop and sell players to the first division...

And allow the AFL to explore promotion and relegation between the two divisions at some future date.

So you'd ruin state leagues. Spend a bucket of AFL money on teams in an invented competition and ruin the even nature of the draft buy creating a scheme to allow players to be brought. Sounds pretty rubbish to me.

ACT, Hobart, Launceston and Darwin are all getting a taste of real life AFL how it is and considering their market size they should be happy with that. Auckland gets passed up as the city for an AFL game for Wellington which is either due to stadium arrangements or possibly it's just not viable. New Zealand is a long term potential market for AFL but we have to conquer the rest of Australia first.

A second division AFL with promotion and relegation allows the game to evolve beyond it's historical base as the markets and opportunities across Australia, New Zealand , etc... emerge.

Certainly the issue of only four or five teams ever having a chance of winning the premier league identifies a flaw that would have to be addressed. similarly any AFL second division would have to be aligned with the state leagues. But the state leagues are already "ruined" by the insertion of AFL reserve teams, etc... so it would simply need to be worked through.

My issue with GWS is that the AFL is spending millions trying to graft a team on an ambivalent audience in Western Sydney while neglecting to provide a path forward for those passionate supporters of footy in Tas, ACT, NT etc...

Look back 50 years to 1964 and the AFL (then VFL) was a state comp. Look forward 50 years to 2064 and if managed and expanded well the AFL will be a different beast to what we see today...

I'm sure in 1964 they didn't see us discussing the merits of spending a 100 million dollars establishing a team in Western Sydney.

  On 14/01/2014 at 02:58, PaulRB said:

A second division AFL with promotion and relegation allows the game to evolve beyond it's historical base as the markets and opportunities across Australia, New Zealand , etc... emerge.

Exactly how does a second division with relegation and promotion allow the game to evolve beyond its 'historical base?'

Hold my hand and take my through how that 'works.'

  On 14/01/2014 at 02:58, PaulRB said:

Certainly the issue of only four or five teams ever having a chance of winning the premier league identifies a flaw that would have to be addressed. similarly any AFL second division would have to be aligned with the state leagues. But the state leagues are already "ruined" by the insertion of AFL reserve teams, etc... so it would simply need to be worked through.

My issue with GWS is that the AFL is spending millions trying to graft a team on an ambivalent audience in Western Sydney while neglecting to provide a path forward for those passionate supporters of footy in Tas, ACT, NT etc...

Look back 50 years to 1964 and the AFL (then VFL) was a state comp. Look forward 50 years to 2064 and if managed and expanded well the AFL will be a different beast to what we see today...

I'm sure in 1964 they didn't see us discussing the merits of spending a 100 million dollars establishing a team in Western Sydney.

You have missed the point, but ironically enough, have mentioned it in your post - the way to grow the game and revenues is to turn ambivalence in to interest. Football followers in ACT, Tas, and NT have a 'path forward' with the Tasmanian Hawks playing 4 games and the 'North' Melbourne Kangaroos a further 2. The ACT has 4 games and the interest of a team that is competing with two other well-supported teams, and the NT has, at the moment, the MFC to see twice a year.

These markets cannot sustain an AFL team. They may be able to have a 'AFL 2nd Division' team. But for what purpose? To spend a fifth of their competitors on players every second year as they go in and out of the AFL?

I am sure that what we see today will be vastly different in 2064 - but I do not see a relegation based league as desirable progress and can barely see the merit in a nationwide 2nd division.

Agree rpfc.

The crux of it is that new teams in the ACT, NT, Tas aren't expanding the comp. They are only diversifying the teams and really they either stretch the comp if it's teams added or if they take out a Vic team then they take away from highly attended games between two Vic teams.

In terms of pure expansion it has to be where the people are which mainly means Sydney

My guess of where we will be in 50 years depends a lot on Gold Coast and GWS. If they succeed we can add a 3rd WA and a 3rd NSW team. Possibly we will do that anyway whilst taking away 2 Victorian teams. Tasmania's biggest hope is securing a struggling Vic team.

Relocating or sharing a team in team in Tas is the answer there and the Hawks/North are on the way. IMO North does not have a sifficient base in melbourne and will need to expand into Hobart to stay viable probably to a greater degree than the Hawks are in Launceston. The launceston/Hobart rivalry means a team based in Hobart will not work nor will a team based in Launceston. No one in Launceston will change support from the Hawks to a Hobart team and vice versa.

I agree with the Master, there will be sigificant pressure on a number of Vic based clubs in coming including us. We cant compete untill we get sustained success and start getting prime time exposure to attract money and support. This needs to occur over decades not a couple of years.

I also think free agency will put pressure on the poorer Vic based clubs that may see one or two fold or relocate quicker than we think. As player moves become more commonplace the hold clubs like us, the dogs and Noth have on their players will diminish. Look at any other sport around the world and it is common for professional atheletes to look after their own interest first and the clubs second.

  On 14/01/2014 at 03:12, rpfc said:

Exactly how does a second division with relegation and promotion allow the game to evolve beyond its 'historical base?'

Hold my hand and take my through how that 'works.'

You have missed the point, but ironically enough, have mentioned it in your post - the way to grow the game and revenues is to turn ambivalence in to interest. Football followers in ACT, Tas, and NT have a 'path forward' with the Tasmanian Hawks playing 4 games and the 'North' Melbourne Kangaroos a further 2. The ACT has 4 games and the interest of a team that is competing with two other well-supported teams, and the NT has, at the moment, the MFC to see twice a year.

These markets cannot sustain an AFL team. They may be able to have a 'AFL 2nd Division' team. But for what purpose? To spend a fifth of their competitors on players every second year as they go in and out of the AFL?

I am sure that what we see today will be vastly different in 2064 - but I do not see a relegation based league as desirable progress and can barely see the merit in a nationwide 2nd division.

At the moment the Victorian based clubs (Hawks, North, us etc...) prop up their revenue and membership number by token associations with Football loving areas (Tas, ACT, NT, etc..). Kind of reminds me of the British empire drawing resources from its colonies to prop itself up. Its a construct that the AFL (derived from and serving the interests of the Clubs involved) maintains as a lip service to the aspirations of those areas to have their OWN team.

In addition, to providing traditional footy areas to have their own team and identities, a second division with promotion and relegation would be a far better place to for the AFL "birth" an expansion team as it pursues new markets. Both GWS and GC were not at an AFL acceptable level when they entered the AFL competition, and should have started in the second division and had to earn the right to play in the AFL. Likewise, several AFL teams (MFC included) have under performed in part because there was a. a reward for doing so (draft picks) and b. because there was no penalty for being hopeless...

A meritocracy determining which Teams play in the AFL as opposed to the "empire expanded" approach to date...

For example, Hobart enter a team in the AFL second division and win through to the AFL, after several year they play finals and one day snag a flag!

As Bill Murray said "Cinderella story. Outta nowhere. A former greenskeeper, now, about to become the Masters champion. It looks like a mirac... It's in the hole! It's in the hole! It's in the hole!" 

and its that kind of story that will expand the competition...

  On 14/01/2014 at 04:56, PaulRB said:

At the moment the Victorian based clubs (Hawks, North, us etc...) prop up their revenue and membership number by token associations with Football loving areas (Tas, ACT, NT, etc..). Kind of reminds me of the British empire drawing resources from its colonies to prop itself up. Its a construct that the AFL (derived from and serving the interests of the Clubs involved) maintains as a lip service to the aspirations of those areas to have their OWN team.

In addition, to providing traditional footy areas to have their own team and identities, a second division with promotion and relegation would be a far better place to for the AFL "birth" an expansion team as it pursues new markets. Both GWS and GC were not at an AFL acceptable level when they entered the AFL competition, and should have started in the second division and had to earn the right to play in the AFL. Likewise, several AFL teams (MFC included) have under performed in part because there was a. a reward for doing so (draft picks) and b. because there was no penalty for being hopeless...

A meritocracy determining which Teams play in the AFL as opposed to the "empire expanded" approach to date...

For example, Hobart enter a team in the AFL second division and win through to the AFL, after several year they play finals and one day snag a flag!

As Bill Murray said "Cinderella story. Outta nowhere. A former greenskeeper, now, about to become the Masters champion. It looks like a mirac... It's in the hole! It's in the hole! It's in the hole!" 

and its that kind of story that will expand the competition...

AFL clubs are not exploiting these areas and the areas can mount a case for a team of their own but they simply don't have the capacity to get one. If Tasmania wanted an AFL team all they'd have to do is stop buying games of footy for their people and carve out a business plan. Strong success by a team in the VFL (who would gladly accept a team of some of the best footballers in Tassie) would eventually lead to pressure on the AFL and a Tassie team would happen. But the way Tasmania, Hobart and Launy are it wont happen. Darwin is even worse.

You are living is a fantasy world if you think relegation and promotion can exist in an equal competition. It's a sure fire way to make Coll, Haw, West Coast and a few others perrenial top 6 and the rest of the clubs a farce.

In only their second year Gold Coast were competitive. In their 3rd (2013) they were pretty good. And they've been designed to build slowly for sustained success. The AFL and most supporters are comfortable with that (for at least GC, GWS have built too slowly and stockpiled too much young talent).

The draft picks and tanking issue has in some way contributed to Melbourne being bad but there is certainly punishment for us being bad. Just look at our crowds and financial position.

The AFL serves the teams and the game that is the point of having the AFL and building the empire slowly and expanding in to legitimate populations like Western Sydney is exactly the right move. Throwing open some second division and seeing who bobs up whilst existing clubs falter is beyond stupid.

I hear what you are saying (despite living in a fantasy world ) and agree that the inequity in the various club's financial position is an issue, both now and in any future model.

However, would the MFC got their [censored] together quicker as a club if we'd suffered the humiliation of relegation?

My view is the AFL is too controlling and unwilling to create a structure that allows for the evolution of clubs to and from the top level of the comp.

Perhaps, when contemplating adding GWS and GC, the AFL could have looked at two 12 team divisions (first division and second division), hived off the two four weakest AFL teams and added 10 licenses (including GWS, GC, Hobart, ACT, etc...) with two teams going up and down each season.

This would have had some benefits

1. made the fixture in both divisions able to be even (i.e. play each other team twice)

2. able the market and strength of the teams decise the mix in the top comp

3. allowed the AFL to still pump cash into their expansion projects

4. Allowed footy to access Government support (Tas Gov, ACT gov, NY Gov) to support their fanchises.

5. punished failure in the top division, maintaining interest in the bottom four games

6. rewarded success in the second division...

Imagine the joy at watching Carlton getting relegated, as they would have several years ago..

  On 14/01/2014 at 05:41, PaulRB said:

Imagine the joy at watching Carlton getting relegated, as they would have several years ago..

Umm...how about us over the last few years?

  On 14/01/2014 at 07:25, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Umm...how about us over the last few years?

We'd be looking at winning our first flag in fifty years...

in the B League.

  On 12/01/2014 at 07:33, the master said:

Tasmania has 500,000 people, most (of the relevant population) of whom already watch footy on TV. Western Sydney has over 2 million people of which very few watch footy on TV. Hobart has only 200,000 people. They could provide a consistent crowd of 20-30,000 with games split between Hobart and Launceston maybe in a 7/4 or 8/3 home split but it's not like the AFL is consistently giving up massive crowds by picking GWS over Tasmania.

AFL players would probably gladly live in Hobart, I don't think that would be an issue at all. Simply the population of Tasmania limits the viability of expanding the competition to move there. It would be incredibly stupid. What Tasmania has done is right, get teams to play matches in it's 2 biggest cities. Long term they should be trying to capture the Kangaroos for good and make them their team. Not saying I want the roos to move but that's really Tassie's biggest hope.

The AFL in hindsight would've loved to have got in to Western Sydney before soccer but in reality the game wasn't as stable 5 or 10 years ago as it is now. Soccer was always going to be successful. The real battle will be against the Western Sydney rugby league clubs and against Sydney sporting culture. If we ever want to get to 20 teams in the AFL it will take at least 3 successful clubs in Sydney I would think. The AFL should start getting struggling Melbourne clubs (us, the bulldogs, North) to play games in Northern Sydney, Gosford and Newcastle rather than Darwin, Alice Springs or Cairns.

Tassie would get 15,000 very passionate fans on average to afl games played there given they had their own team, compared to 5,000 for GWS. From all reports state league is already struggling in Tassie, so an AFL team and dropping state league to regional leagues could work.

You suggest a third team in Sydney for a 20 team comp, how about in the west, Freo and WC get huge crowds, there is better potential.

People in west Sydney don't seem to care or want footy, but swift until they start to win games and the crowds will slowly get bigger and memberships will increase, but hopefully not because I hate the GWS with a passion

  On 14/01/2014 at 04:56, PaulRB said:

At the moment the Victorian based clubs (Hawks, North, us etc...) prop up their revenue and membership number by token associations with Football loving areas (Tas, ACT, NT, etc..). Kind of reminds me of the British empire drawing resources from its colonies to prop itself up. Its a construct that the AFL (derived from and serving the interests of the Clubs involved) maintains as a lip service to the aspirations of those areas to have their OWN team.

In addition, to providing traditional footy areas to have their own team and identities, a second division with promotion and relegation would be a far better place to for the AFL "birth" an expansion team as it pursues new markets. Both GWS and GC were not at an AFL acceptable level when they entered the AFL competition, and should have started in the second division and had to earn the right to play in the AFL. Likewise, several AFL teams (MFC included) have under performed in part because there was a. a reward for doing so (draft picks) and b. because there was no penalty for being hopeless...

A meritocracy determining which Teams play in the AFL as opposed to the "empire expanded" approach to date...

For example, Hobart enter a team in the AFL second division and win through to the AFL, after several year they play finals and one day snag a flag!

As Bill Murray said "Cinderella story. Outta nowhere. A former greenskeeper, now, about to become the Masters champion. It looks like a mirac... It's in the hole! It's in the hole! It's in the hole!" 

and its that kind of story that will expand the competition...

That is quite a tale...

In what world does a club playing in a second rate league, which is what it would be, garner enough interest, talent, and sponsorship to stay in the first rate league for any longer than one season?

This is you simply imposing a structure from European football leagues and inventing the cause and effect to suit your argument.

And I know from experiences up here in Canberra that if you had a team called Canberra play other state league teams in a 2nd division of the AFL it would not be followed at all. AFL fans here have their teams locally and they will only move to another team if they are in a higher league. Non-AFL supporters are not going to be won over by 2nd division AFL.

And, again, explain how the payments will work and how the draft works in this 2 league system?

If you want to have a football code that 'punishes failure' you can watch the EPL. If you want to have a football code in which most teams have a chance to win every year then you have to get over the desire to punish bad teams.

Having the MFC relegated to 'fix out act' would end our activities.

Who else thinks like this? I hope this isn't a widespread idea, I saw it in the HUN a few years ago. God help football if this happens.

Who gives a rats two cheeks.

It's GWS.

  On 14/01/2014 at 09:31, DemonOX said:

Who gives a rats two cheeks.

It's GWS.

please start a topic of your own.

  On 14/01/2014 at 09:36, J VINEY FAN said:

please start a topic of your own.

That's not a bad idea and the title would be "Who gives a rats two cheeks about GWS".

Would be bigger than the T S thread I reckon!

Some of you should consider the definition of myopic.

Dead set - this now national competition would still be based in Melbourne and Geelong if some of you were bringing this ship into port.

Decisions for the future need to be made ahead of time, not when it's too late. And that applies more broadly than to the AFL.

As an aside, GWS has an absolute belter of a club song - hats off to the MFC supporter who apparently wrote it.

  On 14/01/2014 at 10:14, Ron Burgundy said:

Some of you should consider the definition of myopic.

Dead set - this now national competition would still be based in Melbourne and Geelong if some of you were bringing this ship into port.

Decisions for the future need to be made ahead of time, not when it's too late. And that applies more broadly than to the AFL.

As an aside, GWS has an absolute belter of a club song - hats off to the MFC supporter who apparently wrote it.

Not quite. If it had try to pretend to be national but really just be a Melbourne/Geelong competition it probably wouldn't exist except as some form of amateur league. The economics don't stack up without full integration of the country's most populous state.

  On 13/01/2014 at 10:39, dee-luded said:

yes but the types of demographic in the West may be more tribal & loyal to the cause they follow... so if the Giants can get a foothold into a demographic that goes to games & supports with a fierce passion, then they will grow.

maybe the Northern & inner suburbs people are more “Comme ci, comme ca”.

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.

  On 14/01/2014 at 08:59, rpfc said:

That is quite a tale...

In what world does a club playing in a second rate league, which is what it would be, garner enough interest, talent, and sponsorship to stay in the first rate league for any longer than one season?

This is you simply imposing a structure from European football leagues and inventing the cause and effect to suit your argument.

And I know from experiences up here in Canberra that if you had a team called Canberra play other state league teams in a 2nd division of the AFL it would not be followed at all. AFL fans here have their teams locally and they will only move to another team if they are in a higher league. Non-AFL supporters are not going to be won over by 2nd division AFL.

And, again, explain how the payments will work and how the draft works in this 2 league system?

To answer you first question: in a world where there are other interests supporting the success of a club playing in B Div to move up and succeed in the A Div. For example, the Tas Gov't currently pour x million into Hawks and North to play on the island, they would be a stakeholder in a Tas team and support its rise. Alternatively, the AFL would do likewise for their preferred expansion team. Or a third Perth team might get there on the back of some Mining magnates ego trip... Diversity, opportunity.

To your point about the interest in Canberra of watching their team in a B Div, the interest would come when their team won the B Div and moved up to the A Div...

Highlighting where the concept has failed (Euro football leagues) is akin the the Wright brothers saying "no one else has flown, why should we even try". Others failure to do something is only persuasive if you are also intent on failing.

To be honest I don't know how the payments and draft would work in a 24 team two tier competition. But if the AFL were to spend its spare 100 million on creating a B Div and restructuring the comp I'm sure the thought and money available for that coin would create a better solution than GWS.

  On 14/01/2014 at 08:27, J VINEY FAN said:

Tassie would get 15,000 very passionate fans on average to afl games played there given they had their own team, compared to 5,000 for GWS. From all reports state league is already struggling in Tassie, so an AFL team and dropping state league to regional leagues could work.

You suggest a third team in Sydney for a 20 team comp, how about in the west, Freo and WC get huge crowds, there is better potential.

People in west Sydney don't seem to care or want footy, but swift until they start to win games and the crowds will slowly get bigger and memberships will increase, but hopefully not because I hate the GWS with a passion

Yep in a later post I said a third team in the west is a legitimate consideration. But a third team in the West or a Tassie team will only hurt Victorian teams, possibly provide slightly higher fan attendances at the gate but do little for TV viewing. True expansion is most importantly judged by TV viewing not attendance and to get them up we need to crack Sydney. The other thing we need to expand to 20 teams (or even keep 18) is more players coming out of NSW and QLD so more juniors in those areas. VIC, SA, WA with a little help from Tas and NT can't provide the talent to fill strong AFL teams. We need the 9 or so million people in NSW and QLD to start producing a heap more top draftees.

  On 14/01/2014 at 23:07, PaulRB said:

To answer you first question: in a world where there are other interests supporting the success of a club playing in B Div to move up and succeed in the A Div. For example, the Tas Gov't currently pour x million into Hawks and North to play on the island, they would be a stakeholder in a Tas team and support its rise. Alternatively, the AFL would do likewise for their preferred expansion team. Or a third Perth team might get there on the back of some Mining magnates ego trip... Diversity, opportunity.

To your point about the interest in Canberra of watching their team in a B Div, the interest would come when their team won the B Div and moved up to the A Div...

Highlighting where the concept has failed (Euro football leagues) is akin the the Wright brothers saying "no one else has flown, why should we even try". Others failure to do something is only persuasive if you are also intent on failing.

To be honest I don't know how the payments and draft would work in a 24 team two tier competition. But if the AFL were to spend its spare 100 million on creating a B Div and restructuring the comp I'm sure the thought and money available for that coin would create a better solution than GWS.

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.

  On 14/01/2014 at 23:18, Pennant St Dee said:

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.

Yes, have my 100% agreement.

We are paying a lot of money to 80 players across the competition who are clearly VFL standard.

In 2013 I reckon we had about 12 of them.

Paul,

Not sure your suggested model would stand up. To be a competetive outfit all the B Div side would need to provide similar stucture to A Div sides including training and administration. You cant go from a part time club to being a professional outfit over night. There is barely enough money going a round now, your model would spread to money across double the sides.

A good example is the one you used above. Do you think loosing millions of dollars to a Tas side would have no effect on the Hawks? I know they are doing okay now but with a sustained down period they would face the same pressures we are facing now.

I follow the baggies in the EPL, the soccer clubs always struggle to make the transittion from the Championship to the EPL. More often than not they drop back the very next year. These clubs are all supported by rabid fans and own there own stadiums located in their heartlands and have a much greater population to support them. The AFL is structured very differently. If the Dees were relagated the club would be forced to contract significantly and probably could not afford its existing training facilities and administration. We would cease playing at the MCG as well