Well they can't compete with the mens game. Do they want more games and less broadcast times or less games and a productive broadcast spots?

12 minutes ago, WERRIDEE said:

Well they can't compete with the mens game. Do they want more games and less broadcast times or less games and a productive broadcast spots?

Come on, bringing in two extra teams whilst reducing the season rounds is taking the comp backwards. So unfair on so many levels. 

18 hours ago, Is Dom Is Good said:

Good on her.

The AFL really butcher everything they do. Even with only 10 teams they can't setup a fair fixture! Laughable organisation.

I’m sure you know more than the afl about setting up a league. 

They have spent millions of dollars and employed the best minds. I’ll take their advise over yours 

17 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

She is the leading voice in the comp and universally admired across the AFLW and the AFL.

Very compelling reasons she puts up against the 6 week/2 finals comp and against a 'conference' structured comp.  She has called the AFL out on their stupidity!! 

I reckon either have a proper comp or don't have one at all. 

Daisy is as courageous off the field as she is on.  So rapt she has taken the AFL on over this with no fear or favour!  Go Daisy!!

It’s a fledgling competition that still needs to find its place. There’s a fine balance between keeping interest levels up and over saturation.

For the last 2 years TV rights were sold for nothing and admission to the games has been free. 

As soon as the men’s comp starts then the woman’s game is forgotten. The woman’s GF was played in round 1 of the men’s and didn’t get exposure. 

The plan for the women’s game looks forward 20 years. It’s much more important now to get mass exposure over 8 games then compromised exposure over 12. 

 

3 hours ago, WERRIDEE said:

Well they can't compete with the mens game. Do they want more games and less broadcast times or less games and a productive broadcast spots?

100% correct. 

It's just fantastic to finally see someone from our football club criticise the AFL and their moronic ideas.

They are killing this game. Good on ya Daisy. Tough in so many ways.

No wonder Daisy calls the proposed comp a 'gimmick':  "... the reason behind the players’ outcry is that all 10 clubs were approached with the proposed seven-week home and away fixture, asking for requests as to whom they would like to play".  https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/the-reason-behind-the-outcry-from-aflw-players-and-the-impending-2019-fixture/news-story/3d340c1e660dbbc870188922e0be31c8

Seriously!  Asking clubs who they would like to play!  They will say Collingwood to give their sponsors the widest broadcast coverage.  Or, nominate struggling teams to enhance chances of making the final.  Talk about open to manipulation.

If a self-selected fixture isn't 'gimmicky' I don't know what is.

What bothers me is that there is a 14 person committee to consider the fixture and other AFLW issues but the two 'faces' of AFLW and its two strongest voices are not on said committee.  The two are Daisy Pearce and Susan Alberti.  They have been involved since the beginning, the driving forces behind the creation of AFLW.  I would go so far to say that without them AFLW would not exist.  The 14 person committee is lessened for not having Pearce and Alberti on it. 

Apparently no decision has been made about the length of the season!  http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2018-08-08/aflw-longer-season-still-a-possibility

Given the facts in the post above this one it seemed the AFL and Ms Livingstone were well on the way to implementing their earlier plan. 

Thankfully we have the respected and strong voices of Daisy and Susan Alberti to lobby for what makes sense.

Edited August 8, 20186 yr by Lucifer's Hero

On 8/7/2018 at 10:33 AM, Lucifer's Hero said:

No wonder Daisy calls the proposed comp a 'gimmick':  "... the reason behind the players’ outcry is that all 10 clubs were approached with the proposed seven-week home and away fixture, asking for requests as to whom they would like to play".  https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/the-reason-behind-the-outcry-from-aflw-players-and-the-impending-2019-fixture/news-story/3d340c1e660dbbc870188922e0be31c8

Jesus, that's ridiculous.

On 8/3/2018 at 11:57 PM, ShaneJ said:

Come on, bringing in two extra teams whilst reducing the season rounds is taking the comp backwards. So unfair on so many levels. 

Yep, I agree. The comp was probably already too short, with just one week of finals, so I think this is pretty self-evident.

As an aside, I think the AFL is mad to expand the competition at this stage - the talent pool isn't deep enough to provide quality footballers for the existing teams, let alone a bunch of new teams.

With the uptake of girls playing footy that'll turn around relatively quickly, but the AFLW has still expanded too much, too rapidly.

Edited August 8, 20186 yr by Rogue

On 8/3/2018 at 7:55 PM, Senojy said:

As inept as Gil is he may have accidentally have come up with a viable solution.

As there is a restricted time these games can be played perhaps the comp should be split into 2 pools. Pools decided on last years results.

4 games each pool

Top 2 teams go through to a prelim

GF

All done in 6 weeks.

That could actually be a reasonable solution in the circumstances.  Could have something like east Vs west in the two pools to the extent possible to keep a lid on air travel costs would also keep interstate and intra state rivalries burning.  The other option could be to contract the size of the competition altogether and rebuild it as a state of origin competition which would have the effect of reconcerntrating the talent pool and lifting the standard of games. ... but I can't actually see anyone back tracking that far.

I can't remember which are the AFLW expansion teams - is there two Perth or Adelaide teams?

To me the solution is fairly obvious - play the AFLW finals series into the start of the men's comp and play the games as curtain raisers.  I think in this way the AFLW would be complementary rather than competitive against the men's comp.

Rd 1 of the men's comp will always attract huge attention, so they could actually give the women a bye round in Rd 1 and give them a chance to get all their stars back on the park for finals, thus raising the standard of finals games to be played in front of large live crowds. By around round 3 or 4 interest in the men's game has probably dipped a bit and the AFLW finals could actually add to the level of interest and media attention for the AFL.  Last year's AFLW GF attracted around 7,000 at Icon (Princess? - how appropriate) Park.  How much better would it be for all involved if it was played in front of 30,000 to 60,000 at the MCG, Adelaide Oval, Gabba etc.  Having the women's GF played as a curtain raiser would probably add a few thousand suporters to that games attendance, but probably still financially superior to opening up Icon for only 7,000. 

Playing the game on a big stage would also do more to boost the profile and equatable status of AFLW, intangibles that shouldn't be overlooked or undervalued.  To a cirtain extent the whole sucess to date of the AFLW has been built around these drivers.  I am also leaning towards the view that match payments for the AFLW should be increased to be much closer to the mens.  It has been documented in several articles I have read reciently that the AFLW has lead to huge increases in participation at the grass roots level, (helping to fend off the basketball and soccer invaders and establishing another beach frount in expansion states) and that has only got to be good for the health of the game both spiritually and finacially moving forward, providing more than ample justification for a significant increase.

Win - win.

Edited August 8, 20186 yr by Rodney (Balls) Grinter

46 minutes ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

To me the solution is fairly obvious - play the AFLW finals series into the start of the men's comp and play the games as curtain raisers.  I think in this way the AFLW would be complementary rather than competitive against the men's comp.

I think it was a massive mistake to split the AFLW from the pre-season comp. Far better to have two games in one day, and can't see that it was advantageous to split the comps.

On 8/9/2018 at 6:55 AM, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

To me the solution is fairly obvious - play the AFLW finals series into the start of the men's comp and play the games as curtain raisers.  I think in this way the AFLW would be complementary rather than competitive against the men's comp.
 

When the AFLW was announced a few years ago, I simply assumed this would be how it worked.

Trying to take the most generous interpretation of the AFL here - maybe they don't want the women's league to be considered as a opening act?

The cynic in me however leans towards suspecting that the AFL only want the AFLW to fill in broadcast gaps before the men's comp starts. That this was never about building the women's game, but about finding an opportunity to make some cash when the TV networks have no major sport to televise.

Everything the AFL does is about business. The rule changes are all about the 'product' and the 'look of the game'. It's a shame the administration is so terrible, given the game itself at its purest is such an exciting one to watch and be a part of.

 

Congratulations to Daisy and Ben.

 

Edited August 31, 20186 yr by McQueen
Whoops! Just saw other dedicated thread.

how many games has Daisy played so far ? ??

Good luck to them...Daisy and her clan..