BOUND FOR SOMEWHERE ELSE - a Demonland Feature

[QueenC 74]

it might be the heartland of NRL...but League is hardly setting records . . I know its a Victorian outlook... but league can be battled. A lot of mums would rather kids played footy than league !!!!!!!

League have set massive membership and attendance records this year. They are not faltering.

Union is the one under siege, but the Waratahs still got reasonable attendances this season despite finishing second last.

Just out of curiosity would a second league team in Melbourne work?

[beelzebub 22,269]

Just out of curiosity would a second league team in Melbourne work?

I very much doubt it...

and so they say why would a 2nd work in Sydney i hear the pundits lining up to question.

The AFL is much more succcessful machine than the NRL. it has better strategies for expansion and probably more money to do so.

[QueenC 74]

The AFL is much more succcessful machine than the NRL. it has better strategies for expansion and probably more money to do so.

I agree the AFL is the biggest and most successful national competition we have........

But just because they, or we or you, or anyone says that they want a team somewhere doesn't automatically mean that that somewhere is ready to sustain a team.

[beelzebub 22,269]

quite lol

The AFL are a crafty lot though. whatever we put up here has already been done to death in some bopard room at AFL house:). They already know where its going to happen and even the 'who' as most likely candidates !!

Its a my toy's better than yours with the AFL.. they WANT a 2nd team in Harbour Town !!. They know it has to happen..as with GC if the game is to evolve and keep pace

[QueenC 74]

quite lol

The AFL are a crafty lot though. whatever we put up here has already been done to death in some bopard room at AFL house:). They already know where its going to happen and even the 'who' as most likely candidates !!

Its a my toy's better than yours with the AFL.. they WANT a 2nd team in Harbour Town !!. They know it has to happen..as with GC if the game is to evolve and keep pace

Well, if they want another team in my fair city then they are going to have to do a hell of a lot more promotion to get the game itself in a better position.

When that happens then maybe the city will be ready but in my opinion we are not ready now, despite what the AFL demands of it.

So I guess we will all have to wait and cross that (Harbour) bridge when we get to it !!!

[beelzebub 22,269]

Queen...where do you see the AFL can better things.. what are they doing wrong..or not all ??

[deanox 8,726]

Well, if they want another team in my fair city then they are going to have to do a hell of a lot more promotion to get the game itself in a better position.

When that happens then maybe the city will be ready but in my opinion we are not ready now, despite what the AFL demands of it.

So I guess we will all have to wait and cross that (Harbour) bridge when we get to it !!!

in all honesty, i wish they wouldnt spend so much on sydney let alone increase the spending.

i do think a second team will help to saturate the market better. ie footy will be on and in the news every week rather than once a fortnight...

and i do agree with queenc that the grassroots level needs to be in place solidly before the elite team comes in. however, the afl is talking GC by 2010 which means a second sydney team couldnt really be before 2015 could it? thats 8 years away. if the grassroots level has been in for 4-5 years now (auskick etc) and we have special sydney recruits these days, the first group of auskick kids (8 years old) would be 20-21 and could have been drafted 3 times over. the timing seems pretty perfect to me. for the first year of the club, let them secure 5-10 names from other clubs they are keen on, preferentially ex-nsw players, and then give them first 5 draft picks but only from nsw. give them the best nsw talent to start the club off. but this isnt for 8-10 years...

[QueenC 74]

Queen...where do you see the AFL can better things.. what are they doing wrong..or not all ??

I don't think they (the AFL) are doing anything particularly wrong bub........

Its just that what they are doing, like the junior development (Auskick) programs which will hopefully spurn a new bigger and more loyal generation of AFL supporters, will take some time to take hold, particularly out west where most of this funding is being channelled and where league is still in the blood.

This is not an AFL city and that should not be forgotten in all this talk of expansion, and while is is becoming increasingly popular it is still viewed by a hell of a lot of people as an invasion from down south. My issue is that this increased popularity within the city as a whole comes not from the league but from the Swans.

It they can maintain success then the code will remain successful in Sydney, if not then it will flounder. A potential second team will suffer the same fate, even worse in my opinion because it will be in a much tougher region and will not have nearly the same benefits as the Swans have now. People will follow it without supporting it. The Razorbacks in the NBL suffered a similar problem when they entered the comp and where thrown up against a successful and popular Kings outfit.

But to me the code itself needs to be sold better, and a marketing or development plan is not something I have at my fingertips, to make the code itself stronger within the Sydney demographic, and not completely reliant on the success or selling ability of the Swans. The press forgets that there are other teams or other teams supporters up here and the broadcast of games not involving the Swans into the Sydney market is unbelievably appalling. This will need to change.

It is a simple truth that kids aren't going to want to play something they can't see and right now we don't see squat. And that in turn doesn't particularly help with the promotion of the game in school programs, where they are trying to establish young support. League is here all the time and is easy for a kid to fall for.

There are a lot of factors that will need to fall into place before the AFL can move or create another team in Sydney, these are just a few off the top of my head. And they are very basic. I am not saying it will never happen. It most likely will. What I am saying is that right now it seems like an unsustainable proposition.

[deanox 8,726]

...

queenc, a lot of that makes very good points, but do you not think the insertion of another team will help fill some of those voids? an extra team means double the tv exposure and double the press coverage from the get go. there will be competition from the swans so hopefully both sides will have to advertise to get members etc. another team means much more saturated cover of footy which is what you are asking for. provided the media doesnt fall off the bandwagon...

[QueenC 74]

queenc, a lot of that makes very good points, but do you not think the insertion of another team will help fill some of those voids? an extra team means double the tv exposure and double the press coverage from the get go. there will be competition from the swans so hopefully both sides will have to advertise to get members etc. another team means much more saturated cover of footy which is what you are asking for. provided the media doesnt fall off the bandwagon...

Double the exposure? Good grief no!!!

They can't get TV exposure right for the one team, without ignoring the rest of the comp, what makes you think they can handle two?

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Probably Roos to GC.

Maybe WB to West Sydney.

But Melb, Coll, Carl, Rich, St.k, Haw, and Ess can be supported here. Geelong aint a Melbourne team.

Coll, Carl, Ess are financially secure. Haw has Tas to help with their bottom line and membership. Rich and St.K have enough supporters.

Melbourne may look vulnerable but there will always be a Melbourne in the AFL.

The city is big enough to comfortably support 7 clubs.

Then why are only 2 Vic based clubs that are financially stable, profitable and not living solely off AFL largesse?

[deanox 8,726]

Double the exposure? Good grief no!!!

They can't get TV exposure right for the one team, without ignoring the rest of the comp, what makes you think they can handle two?

you don't think that if there was a sydney/west sydney game every week in sydney, and every week interstae it would be easier to get guarantee exposure? at the moment the exposure is fleeting - not live against the gate, competing with nrl for the live slot etc but if the package was more than 11 games, but now 22 away games and 44 games for the season, is the afl not in a better position to negotiate a deal that would see a constant time slot? that seems a problem to me atm, that the coverage is spasmodic, not enough to own a slot...

so you think that the media will simple shun the new side, as they shun sydney atm?

[Geddy Lee 582]

The AFL have been planning the Kangas to be interstate club for years....Sydney, Canberra...Now Gold Coast

At present outside Collingwood and Essendon, no Vic Club is stand alone financially profitable. Carlton have the potential to be as do Richmond (large supporter base). Geelong will be the Victorian regional team. Hopefully Melbourne survives in some form. Bulldogs and Saints are stuffed.

The AFL will probably look like this in the future (10 years or so)

NSW 1 (3) - 2/3 City or 1 regional

QLD 1 (3) - 1 City, 1 Gold Coast, 1 FNQ/NT (Bulldogs???)

SA 2 (2) -

WA 2 (2)

Tas/NT 0 (1) - Hawks

Victoria 6 (10) - Coll, Carl, Essen, Geel, Melb (?), Rich/StK (Only 1 to stay)

There is no way Victoria can support 8 teams and will struggle to support more than five.

It's about every 12-15 years when a team gets shafted, and that's not about to change. Bulldogs will be the next ones to move in about 2020. There seems to be some mass hysteria right now about who is and who isn't financially sustainable, but the AFL cannot hurry these relocations as they run the risk of alienating large supporter bases, localities and television watchers. The AFL will get more than a BILLION dollars out of the next TV deal, these handouts to clubs is loose change.

[QueenC 74]

you don't think that if there was a sydney/west sydney game every week in sydney, and every week interstae it would be easier to get guarantee exposure? at the moment the exposure is fleeting - not live against the gate, competing with nrl for the live slot etc but if the package was more than 11 games, but now 22 away games and 44 games for the season, is the afl not in a better position to negotiate a deal that would see a constant time slot? that seems a problem to me atm, that the coverage is spasmodic, not enough to own a slot...

so you think that the media will simple shun the new side, as they shun sydney atm?

Look, I get the impression that I am obviously the only one around here who thinks that Sydney can't handle two teams at present, but I am the one who lives here and as such probably have a slightly better handle on what this city will or could handle. Or at least better than those who don't live here.

Do I think that the media will shun a second team? No, of course not, but after the initial blitz I think that it will fall back into the same level of exposure we have now. It could even split the time now given to the Swans, which is the only AFL news (other than any Cousins related drama) we really get on a regular basis.

League, whether you like it or not, is still the dominant force up here and while a second team could conceivably gain some exposure it is a massive thing to do and shouldn't be done just to trump league on their own home turf, because despite the will (and there will be a way eventually) it just isn't' that simple.

Having more to report on doesn't mean we will get more AFL on our screens, it won't automatically increase the level of media exposure we get, which is a whole other argument entirely and one that will not be solved until the broadcasters put the code first and ratings second. In other words, when hell freezes over.

And if the AFL were serious about selling their code to doubting Sydney-siders there are easier and less intrusive and over-wrought ways to gain exposure in the current and immediate market than to shove a Melbourne-based side into Western Sydney. Besides exposure isn't the only issue, it is just the one I could think of.

[WonnaJurah 5]

it will be the gold coast sharks, ( and linked with the massive QAFL Team Southport up there)

[deanox 8,726]

...

sorry queenc, i wasnt questioning your judgement. i was actually pressing you because i know your up there and wanted to hear more. i suppose it is like if you said the nrl wanted to force their way into melbourne by putting an extra team here. i wouldnt believe it would work, no way. and you're right, it will probably just halve storms coverage in the local rags...

i just get the feeling that the afl think bullying their way is the way to get what they want. that seems to be their only plan of attack atm, they either push until they get somthing or just claim what they believe. its very dictatorship. cousins could have been shorting drugs of AD's shoes at a press conference and he still would have claimed that there was no issue with drugs. if they want it, they will force their way in. pull in favours, and spend big...and i think if they do it properly (with the appropraite grass roots growth etc) they will ultimately be successful, but that could take 50 years of waiting...

[rpfc 27,591]

Then why are only 2 Vic based clubs that are financially stable, profitable and not living solely off AFL largesse?

If living off your own bat entirely is the measure...

That would lead to a competition of 2 SA, 2 WA, and Collingwood and Essendon (I am guessing these are the two clubs you were refering to).

Get a bit tedious after a while...Everyone plays each other 4 or 5 times I guess. I'd probably go for Freo, you know, the old underdog thing.

Seriously, the other 10 battling clubs are what make the competition what it is. The Kangaroos struggle in Melbourne, but they are still going to receive millions for decades to go if they go to the Gold Coast. Sydney do, Brisbane do.

The AFL largesse is garnered because of the strength of the 16 team competition, ALL clubs receive their cut and none are living solely off of it.

These clubs will always be in Melbourne: Coll, Ess, Carl, Rich, Melb, Haw and St.K. And there is plenty of room...and money.

[beelzebub 22,269]

meanwhile....back to the Roos !!! lol

my bet...Allegiance to walk when money talks !!

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/afl-...3619059519.html

the AFL is handing it to them on a platter.. they dont even really leave Melb entirely.. its a pretty good deal really...they'd be fools to knock it back.. Still ...this is footy !! lol

[w00dy 146]

it looks like the roos will be leaving, which is a shame, but i'd be horrified if it were my club...

the most frustrating thing about this is that the AFL are saying the Roos can't support themselves, when the Roos are creating revenue for the AFL... i believe the TV rights package works out to about $1 million per game, maybe a little less... 11 home games, lets say $10 million a year... why is the AFL entitled to this money? i believe it should go to the clubs, who then pay affiliation fees to the AFL to be a part of the competition...

but that's not gonna happen, so i think it's hello Gold Coast Kangaroos...

[gOLLy 401]

I rekon its a bloody good deal and they should take it while they can.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

If living off your own bat entirely is the measure...

That would lead to a competition of 2 SA, 2 WA, and Collingwood and Essendon (I am guessing these are the two clubs you were refering to).

Get a bit tedious after a while...Everyone plays each other 4 or 5 times I guess. I'd probably go for Freo, you know, the old underdog thing.

Seriously, the other 10 battling clubs are what make the competition what it is. The Kangaroos struggle in Melbourne, but they are still going to receive millions for decades to go if they go to the Gold Coast. Sydney do, Brisbane do.

The AFL largesse is garnered because of the strength of the 16 team competition, ALL clubs receive their cut and none are living solely off of it.

These clubs will always be in Melbourne: Coll, Ess, Carl, Rich, Melb, Haw and St.K. And there is plenty of room...and money.

There certaintly isnt at the moment and its getting worse?

There must be a printing press hidden.

You have misread my posts and I have put forward a 16 club AFL competition.

The AFL competition is what it is. Seriously lopsided and getting more so as the interstate clubs development the financial strength to develop football teams and facilities that many Melb based clubs struggle to match. The Melb ourne clubs that cant match these rsources will struggle and continue to enjoy a lack of on field success which will further erode their ability to improve their competitive position. Anymore that 5 Melb based clubs plus Geelong and the excess of sides will be slowly but surely financially strangled.

Outside Essendon, Carlton and Collingwood, it naive to assume any other club is a certainty to survive in Melb.

If the AFL is to remain the premier support football code it will need to develop 2 more clubs in Sydney within the next 10 to 12 years. Sydney is the biggest, wealthiest and most attractive demographic for advertisers and TV rights priced on that ability will dwarf the current arrangement.

The next Club in Sydney should be in the North of the city within 5 to 6 years where there is a reasonable AFL support. With 2 clubs the AFL should be able to beam a "Sydney" game into Sydney every week almost and have a live AFL match in the harbour city each week.

[TonyMelb 7]

I rekon its a bloody good deal and they should take it while they can.

In financial terms that is spot on!

Wonder what AFL's full alternative is??

If NMelb shareholders knock it back would mean Nth Melb would decline further until extict or taken over.

One alternative would perhaps be to revive the Melb & Nth Melb merger. The original merger jumper _ melb jumper with a big red kangaroo could be our alternative strip.

For those who dont know about it, MFC and NMFC almost merged and were going to be the Qantas Melbourne Kangaroos, with qantas the major sponsor (was a roos sponsor at the time). Of all the proposed mergers the one with NthMelb followed by Fitzroy was the best from view of type of club and supporters being well matched.

Perhaps MFC could become proactive in "assisting" the AFL get the 16th team in Gold Coast and attracting Nth Melb supporters across to MFC - for some "small" financial contribution. would strengthen MFC base and long term position. In same way many North and Fitzroy people think the Nth Fitzroy merger would have been better than the sale to Brisbane Bears perhaps Roos supporters would be more likely to follow a Melbourne team based at the G. If 10,000 members came across would make 40,000 membership base a reality.

(Not that I think this is likely - just posulating whether might be some thing to help secure the long term viability of MFC - where MFC would be the party acquiring and not one taken over)

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,627]

"it looks like the roos will be leaving,

"I believe it should go to the clubs, who then pay affiliation fees to the AFL to be a part of the competition... "

That's what I reckon, Vanlo. I don't like the concept of "AFL largesse".

The 16 Clubs put the players out there, battling their guts out. The public like watching it, so the TV stations compete to show it, and the hard-earned money goes to the AFL administrators. It's not generosity on the part of the AFL to re-distribute he funds to the Clubs. But it's true that the AFL has to be prudent in the distributon of these funds. It must distinguish between wasteful, inefficient Club administratrion, and particular, perhaps temporary(in the longterm scheme of things),periods of financial instability for certain clubs.

Like you, I hate the thought of North leaving Melbourne, but I can't help thinking it reduces the pressure on us. Wouldn't Bulldog supporters reading this forum be apoplectic seeing the casual way posters talk of them being shunted up North!

The perfect result for the AFL would be to merge Melb and Richmond, but we hate each other! We must be on the look-out for AFL moves to seed this merge(as they have by pushing "Kangaroos" rather than "North Melb", and "Western Bulldogs" rather than "Footscray".)

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Unless mergers are actively sought by both Clubs and their supporter and the AFL is still scarred from their failed efforts to merge Melbourne and Hawthorn, then they will not happen

Its a political, PR and financial disaster for the AFL and the Clubs involved.

Relocation of an existing Victorian Club allows a reasonable basis for the retention of the existing supporter base while tapping into new markets.

Mergers create more destructive (self) interest groups in the merged entity than the attack on Iraq

[george_on_the_outer 7,033]

Unless mergers are actively sought by both Clubs and their supporter and the AFL is still scarred from their failed efforts to merge Melbourne and Hawthorn, then they will not happen

Its a political, PR and financial disaster for the AFL and the Clubs involved.

Relocation of an existing Victorian Club allows a reasonable basis for the retention of the existing supporter base while tapping into new markets.

Mergers create more destructive (self) interest groups in the merged entity than the attack on Iraq

Spot on Rhino. Mergers are by far the most sensible option, but noone will stomach them.

I was listening to SEN the other night when this first arose, and the most poignant call was from an old Fitzroy fan who wished that his club had relocated when it was first mooted.

They didn't and then spent years being flogged on and off the field, before the skeleton of the side was finally taken over by Brisbane. He encouraged North to do the same, before their club died through uncompetiteness.