I have looked at a number of threads, but I could not find one that I thought fitted so I am creating a new thread I hope it shows something.

It is not news to anyone on Demondland that this competition is supposed to be the AFL feeder competition and it is far from being a good event for the clubs involved. It has teams from three states, the clubs competing are made up of three types, Affiliated with and AFL club e.g. Casey, Clubs that are holey owned by an AFL club e.g. Collingwood and then clubs who are stand alone e.g. Williamstown.

This structure is a dogs breakfast, it doesn't seem to serve any club well.

E.G. there are too many byes, a player who is dropped because of a loss of form finds himself unable to play after being dropped to improve his performance , Injured players returning to the game can find himself only playing two games in a month because of Byes. The competition has a number of clubs that formed part of the original VFA which was swallowed up buy the AFL when it created a second tier feeder competition for its clubs. There are three perhaps more who cannot compete at anywhere near the competition top and constantly reside at the bottom of the competition. I don't see any benefit of having these clubs in the league, how does it benefit a team beating a club like Coburg by big margins. I have always been told that winning when you are far superior to your opponent does nothing for either team. The loser sinks further mentally and for the winner it is a poor training run that does nothing to show up the teams problem areas.

Now the most important part in my opinion, The AFL does very little to promote this second tier and seems happy the go along with a competition that has numerous flaws. I read today in an article that had nothing to do with the VFL per say that the VFL will not be supported by television this year. Channel 7 will not provide coverage in 2026. Not even a game of the round.

Where is the comment from the Media? I see zero comment on the problems of the VFL feeder competition by the media. Are they too scared to lose their AFL accreditation to write critical stories? How do the stand only clubs hope to raise enough funds to compete at the top when their main revenue source of expose by televised games has now been removed. Where is the value in a company sponsoring a club when the only team exposure is a few hundred people who go to games?

Ok, enough of my rambling, I think this is a broken concept the AFL constantly sweeps under the carpet.

Does anyone see any answers?

Maybe a 'please explain' letter to the AFL, co-signed by @Demonland (if I may be so presumptuous, Administrators?😏) and its (presumably) 17 peer groups? That'd be a group of some substance, not fearful of AFL revenge.

I have seen various mutterings from the AFL before that they "are studying" the long-term solution to go back to a "proper" Reserves set-up where all 18 (soon to be 19) AFL teams participate - that of course leaves the stand-alone clubs nowhere - presumably many would fold? Casey? Obviously a huge cost issue if reserves played curtain-raisers that matched up with the AFL fixture.

While this study goes on we get what we get - a real hotchpotch.

31 minutes ago, Harvey Wallbanger said:

I have seen various mutterings from the AFL before that they "are studying" the long-term solution to go back to a "proper" Reserves set-up where all 18 (soon to be 19) AFL teams participate - that of course leaves the stand-alone clubs nowhere - presumably many would fold? Casey? Obviously a huge cost issue if reserves played curtain-raisers that matched up with the AFL fixture.

While this study goes on we get what we get - a real hotchpotch.

Harvey this study would appear to being done by a mirror committee, they are looking into it.

The existing comp comes out of a meeting between the AFL and the AFL clubs. The Sydney and Brisbane clubs complained that their "reserves" didn't have adequate competition.

I'd prefer a relegation system with two divisions of 12 teams. You might see the various teams taking it seriously as they chase promotion or fear relegation.

The other view is just scrap it altogether as it's going nowhere but to oblivion as presently structured.

BTW... why would a player want to play as a supplement to an AFL aligned club when you know that you will never train as a team and that you could be dropped in favour of an underperforming AFL listed player

2 hours ago, old dee said:

I have looked at a number of threads, but I could not find one that I thought fitted so I am creating a new thread I hope it shows something.

It is not news to anyone on Demondland that this competition is supposed to be the AFL feeder competition and it is far from being a good event for the clubs involved. It has teams from three states, the clubs competing are made up of three types, Affiliated with and AFL club e.g. Casey, Clubs that are holey owned by an AFL club e.g. Collingwood and then clubs who are stand alone e.g. Williamstown.

This structure is a dogs breakfast, it doesn't seem to serve any club well.

E.G. there are too many byes, a player who is dropped because of a loss of form finds himself unable to play after being dropped to improve his performance , Injured players returning to the game can find himself only playing two games in a month because of Byes. The competition has a number of clubs that formed part of the original VFA which was swallowed up buy the AFL when it created a second tier feeder competition for its clubs. There are three perhaps more who cannot compete at anywhere near the competition top and constantly reside at the bottom of the competition. I don't see any benefit of having these clubs in the league, how does it benefit a team beating a club like Coburg by big margins. I have always been told that winning when you are far superior to your opponent does nothing for either team. The loser sinks further mentally and for the winner it is a poor training run that does nothing to show up the teams problem areas.

Now the most important part in my opinion, The AFL does very little to promote this second tier and seems happy the go along with a competition that has numerous flaws. I read today in an article that had nothing to do with the VFL per say that the VFL will not be supported by television this year. Channel 7 will not provide coverage in 2026. Not even a game of the round.

Where is the comment from the Media? I see zero comment on the problems of the VFL feeder competition by the media. Are they too scared to lose their AFL accreditation to write critical stories? How do the stand only clubs hope to raise enough funds to compete at the top when their main revenue source of expose by televised games has now been removed. Where is the value in a company sponsoring a club when the only team exposure is a few hundred people who go to games?

Ok, enough of my rambling, I think this is a broken concept the AFL constantly sweeps under the carpet.

Does anyone see any answers?

Halleluiah Brother my sentiments exactly, the ONLY solution is to run a bona fide AFL reserves comp with exclusive AFL TEAMS ONLY, no Port Melbourne, Southport et al, that is the only way forward. BUMP to your post OLD DEE!

2 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

BTW... why would a player want to play as a supplement to an AFL aligned club when you know that you will never train as a team and that you could be dropped in favour of an underperforming AFL listed player

Getting hold of fill-in players won't be an issue as there would still be hundreds of players still wanting to ultimately get a chance at AFL level

Am I right in saying that our very own Robbie Flower (RIP) was knocked back a couple of times but just kept persevering. Might have been just the once

But getting an audience for the games is the biggest issue for the VFL (attending or watching via streaming as the games won't be on Ch7)

And the future for the VFL will involve the 6 interstate teams you'd reckon

2 Divisions? With so many teams (22+), your suggestion has real merit, DJ