Mega Thread Non-Freo AFL Discussion 2024

[Madas]

The thing that most disadvantages our teams are the northern academies and father son rules limiting our access to talent. By some distance that is our biggest disadvantage.
The AFL propping up GWS and the suns with the money of profitable clubs like ours with literally hundreds of millions of dollars over the last decade then adding salt to the wounds by manipulating drafts so they never spend any decent period of time in the bottom 4, now THATS what *s up our team. Not to mention the swans and lions.

There is going to be a 20th team eventually and I’m saying it now - the only logical place is WA. Greater Perth with a population of 2.5 million can sustain 3 clubs.
Melbourne has 5 million people and has 10 clubs. We can easily sustain three in Perth if everyone in WA is so footy obsessed as is claimed.
Per head of population we are the only safe bet for a third team. It would be profitable within a few years. We could get up to 2 extra home matches a year. A genuine mini power base of three clubs in the west to balance out the vic domination.
Any new club in Canberra, Newcastle, Sydney etc will be a bigger financial noose around the next of the AFL for the next 50 years than even the suns and GWS.
Tassie will be profitable and pay for themselves very quickly - they care about football down there.

How does it balance it out though ?
We will just have to share 1/3 of the s**t sandwich instead of half .

The VFL will never let go , not while HQ is based in Melbourne and the nepotism continues for the top jobs .

I guess it’s our only hope though and in the bigger picture you are correct, maybe if there are 10 interstate teams ( WA 3 + Tassie 1 ) the scales might start to tip , then add NT but I reckon in our lifetime get used to the crumbs from the VFL

 

[errant bounce]

St kilda then. 1 of them should go

What's this based off?

Can you give me an economical argument?

I can provide the finances from the AFL.

Almost all clubs run at a loss. we'd have about seven teams if this was an English Premier League style comp and I can tell you, Freo would not be one of them.

I'll never understand this absolute will to kill off clubs.

I cannot stand Richmond and its shithouse fans, Carlton supporters boo and whinge but heck me if they ever got turfed...

 

[errant bounce]

How does it balance it out though ?
We will just have to share 1/3 of the s**t sandwich instead of half .

The VFL will never let go , not while HQ is based in Melbourne and the nepotism continues for the top jobs .

I guess it’s our only hope though and in the bigger picture you are correct, maybe if there are 10 interstate teams ( WA 3 + Tassie 1 ) the scales might start to tip , then add NT but I reckon in our lifetime get used to the crumbs from the VFL

I'm a huge advocate for zones.

We wouldn't have had Pav but kids these days want to be the big man in town or if they're humble, be with family. we've done exceptionally well drafting decent humans like Dave Mundy and Brayshaw and Serong who want to be one club men and dedicate to the cause.

The AFL should put even amounts of money into every single area: give the Suns the Territory, GWS can have Wagga and Canberra, and the Dockers with the Souths, Old Easts, Swans (Indigenous connection), and Peel zones and we alternate with the Eagles with Claremont/Perth and we're allowed to choose a top talent from each every year.

 

[mightymouse75]

I'm clearly younger than you and I heard this same s**t about Melbourne 15 years ago. I remember making these same posts sticking up for the Demons and their heritage and people shooting me down and saying they'd fold.

To go down your track, Richmond were so skint in the 80s they were literally – as in real literally, not modern day zoomer 'literally' – rattling tins. they're *in grubs but they're a behemoth. Hawthorn nearly merged with Melbourne and less than ten years later got Clarkson and won flags and that set them up for three more. in a row.

The Western Bulldogs nearly died and wanted to take on Fitzroy. even those pricks have a flag.

Do people want our 150 year old game to be some sort of franchise competition? Australians are mad for cricket and people are completely disinterested in the T20 despite the money poured in, mostly because there's no history or personal connection.

Do people want an American franchise model?

Because we'd be the Broome Bats in no time.

I'd love to know the average age, games played, and time of supporting football on this board.

Fremantle supporters are becoming this horrible group of people who blame everybody else. it hasn't been easy but far out.;

You want a truly national more equitable competition. At least 1 vicco team needs to go.
Last time I was in Melbourne the western bulldogs were offering 20 buck special for an adult ticket with child for free.
Who is actually paying for that mini crowd.
We are.

I understand taking a hit for the northern clubs to help grow the game.
The status quo in Melbourne should be able to stand on its own 2 feet.

 

[mightymouse75]

What's this based off?

Can you give me an economical argument?

I can provide the finances from the AFL.

Almost all clubs run at a loss. we'd have about seven teams if this was an English Premier League style comp and I can tell you, Freo would not be one of them.

I'll never understand this absolute will to kill off clubs.

I cannot stand Richmond and its shithouse fans, Carlton supporters boo and whinge but * me if they ever got turfed...

Go back to your spreadsheet and whomever team is earning the least amount of money and I will economically argue that club can move interstate or relegate themselves to the vfl..

 

[largebus]

Norf aren't going to fold, despite whatrver Eddie says, because they aren't a financial basket case like Fitzroy were

 

[anchor man]

I'm clearly younger than you and I heard this same s**t about Melbourne 15 years ago. I remember making these same posts sticking up for the Demons and their heritage and people shooting me down and saying they'd fold.

To go down your track, Richmond were so skint in the 80s they were literally – as in real literally, not modern day zoomer 'literally' – rattling tins. they're *in grubs but they're a behemoth. Hawthorn nearly merged with Melbourne and less than ten years later got Clarkson and won flags and that set them up for three more. in a row.

The Western Bulldogs nearly died and wanted to take on Fitzroy. even those pricks have a flag.

Do people want our 150 year old game to be some sort of franchise competition? Australians are mad for cricket and people are completely disinterested in the T20 despite the money poured in, mostly because there's no history or personal connection.

Do people want an American franchise model?

Because we'd be the Broome Bats in no time.

I'd love to know the average age, games played, and time of supporting football on this board.

Fremantle supporters are becoming this horrible group of people who blame everybody else. it hasn't been easy but far out.;

You made my point exactly. But remember for Melbourne to win a flag, the AFL employed a person at the top of the tree to run the club All funded by the AFL. They employed a coach for them, all with AFL money. Paul Roos, not some dummy coach And even with all that, they still had their hand out for money.
All of the clubs you mention were bankrupt when the Eagles and Bears went into the VFL. Even the VFL was broke. North Melbourne were broke back then and still are not financially well off. They get special treatment player wise from the AFL.
The Bulldogs were spoon fed when they won their flag in 2016. They were broke when the Eagles and Bears joined.
Those clubs that the AFL fed by hand, wallet and players, stopped other clubs that were tweeners from getting draft selections that would have allowed them to improve.

 

[anchor man]

How does it balance it out though ?
We will just have to share 1/3 of the s**t sandwich instead of half .

The VFL will never let go , not while HQ is based in Melbourne and the nepotism continues for the top jobs .

I guess it’s our only hope though and in the bigger picture you are correct, maybe if there are 10 interstate teams ( WA 3 + Tassie 1 ) the scales might start to tip , then add NT but I reckon in our lifetime get used to the crumbs from the VFL

Being clubs from states not Victorian states will not back a change. NSW and QLD and Tassie are or will be franchise clubs run by the AFL. They would never be allowed to form a block with WA and SA.
The AFL control the majority. Melbourne based clubs arr not going to vote for something that will weaken them.

 

[Paracleet]

Norf aren't going to fold, despite whatrver Eddie says, because they aren't a financial basket case like Fitzroy were

This is definitely not true. The difference is in 1996 the AFL allocation was about a million a year, less than half Fiztroys debt at the time. North got 23 million in AFL payments last year.
They'd be insolvent if their allocation was the same as ours. (For the record our total AFL payments were about 7 million less).

 

[poshman]

I know this is off the current topic. However, how good is Tex on the left?

I can't remember a KPF who can kick so clean and far off both feet. His goal from fifty on his left was absurd!

 

[Dockeroo]

This is definitely not true. The difference is in 1996 the AFL allocation was about a million a year, less than half Fiztroys debt at the time. North got 23 million in AFL payments last year.
They'd be insolvent if their allocation was the same as ours. (For the record our total AFL payments were about 7 million less).

The suns and GWS would be the first two teams to fold if you want to go down that pathway… and it’s not even close.
Astronomical sums of AFL money have been poured into the suns and GWS since 2009. That investment will never pay dividends, not for 100 years and most likely never. I don’t care how many flags or academy’s or whatever they produce. They will continue to drain money hand over fist from the AFL.
Does that mean they should be disbanded?

 

[Paracleet]

The suns and GWS would be the first two teams to fold if you want to go down that pathway… and it’s not even close.
Astronomical sums of AFL money have been poured into the suns and GWS since 2009. That investment will never pay dividends, not for 100 years and most likely never. I don’t care how many flags or academy’s or whatever they produce. They will continue to drain money hand over fist from the AFL.
Does that mean they should be disbanded?

The expansion teams provide a massive boost to the value of the rights deal, all the money losing Melbourne teams provide is a match in the TV schedule that could replaced by a club that doesn't require an extra 5 or 10 million in funding every year to not to fold.

 

[Dockeroo]

The expansion teams provide a massive boost to the value of the rights deal, all the money losing Melbourne teams provide is a match in the TV schedule that could replaced by a club that doesn't require an extra 5 or 10 million in funding every year to not to fold.

That doesnt make any sense - the value each team provides in the TV rights deals is the extra games played each weekend.

20 teams = 10 games a weekend for the AFL to sell.
18 or even 16 teams (if we removed the 2 or 3 weakest vic sides) = less games each weekend which means less tv money.
Every team adds to the tv rights by giving AFL house more games to sell to fox and Seven.
Every team adds to the value of the tv rights.
At the end of the day the AFL wants more teams, but ones that sustain themselves and don’t require huge funds to stay in business. WA 3 is the obvious spot for expansion

 

[pK75]

That doesnt make any sense - the value each team provides in the TV rights deals is the extra games played each weekend.

20 teams = 10 games a weekend for the AFL to sell.
18 or even 16 teams (if we removed the 2 or 3 weakest vic sides) = less games each weekend which means less tv money.
Every team adds to the tv rights by giving AFL house more games to sell to fox and Seven.
Every team adds to the value of the tv rights.
At the end of the day the AFL wants more teams, but ones that sustain themselves and don’t require huge funds to stay in business. WA 3 is the obvious spot for expansion

The issue is that a 19th team adds nothing, still only 9 games per round, they may need to add an extra round so everyone still plays 23 games. Adding a 20th team adds an extra game per round and better TV deal. I agree that a 3rd WA team would be profitable and would reduce our travel schedule with an extra away game in WA, however it also creates extra competition for WA players and sponsors which may not be good for Freo in the long run. Personally think NT should get a team but it wouldn’t be as profitable for the league and wouldn’t help our travel schedule.

 

[Taylor]

All teams can play every week in a 19 team competition but you won't like it, five day breaks aplenty and games Thursday to Monday.

Ugly brand coming up from that in my opinion.

 

[DragoDelph]

All teams can play every week in a 19 team competition but you won't like it, five day breaks aplenty and games Thursday to Monday.

Ugly brand coming up from that in my opinion.

Not necessarily, increase list sizes, and clubs will have to learn to manage players more often. 5 man bench could help with this too.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

I am dead against a third WA team unless
a) There is a significant investment / change into the development pathways. I would propose WA teams get their own academy because I dont think WAFC or AFL can fix it. The state is barely putting out enough talent for 2 teams, 3 would mean there is very little chance any of the teams can be successful IMO
b) SA get a third team AND a Vic team is removed. 20 teams, 9 teams in VIC, 11 elsewhere, a bit closer to parity.

 

[Taylor]

Not necessarily, increase list sizes, and clubs will have to learn to manage players more often. 5 man bench could help with this too.

Increased list sizes will help with fatigue, but it doesn't mean clubs have an extra Fyfe, Martin, Curnow etc on the list - the talent of the competition is what it is and larger lists with more rotation just means more fringe players are exposed at AFL level hence why I said it would mean a worse brand.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

Barret's opinion can be unbelievable garbage but he can be spot on

 

[mightymouse75]

I am dead against a third WA team unless
a) There is a significant investment / change into the development pathways. I would propose WA teams get their own academy because I dont think WAFC or AFL can fix it. The state is barely putting out enough talent for 2 teams, 3 would mean there is very little chance any of the teams can be successful IMO
b) SA get a third team AND a Vic team is removed. 20 teams, 9 teams in VIC, 11 elsewhere, a bit closer to parity.

We junior development pathways are underfunded by the wafc. The afl spend a lot of money directly on juniors on the east coast. I can't recall what the actual dollars are, but there is a big difference.

If all wa talent stayed and were developed equally in wa. We would have 3 really strong teams.


Population of Victoria 7m ÷ 10 vic teams = .7m
Population of WA 3m ÷ 3 WA teams = 1m

The figures tell the story.

 

[Paracleet]

They don't care about about the number of teams and the number of games really, If all games were equal from a tv rights point of view then there'd be 22 teams and 26 rounds, why not 24 teams?

Any of the 4 northern teams playing one of the big 4 vico teams gets hundreds of thousands, sometimes a million plus eyes on the tv in QLD or NSW they wouldn't otherwise get. Saint Kilda v Footscray is always going to rate poorly, and virtually not at all in the Northern market. Whereas whoever is playing a big 4 team in Melbourne will rate well, irrespective of whether its us or Port, an expansion team or one of the Melbourne minnows.

The only reason the two or three smallest teams in Melbourne haven't been punted is because they don't have the stomach for the shitfight (well that and a sizeable % of them probably also unconsciously believe they really do deserve special treatment as Vic teams). Look how hard it was to get rid of Fitzroy and they are still whining about it now, with some fairness when it comes to the shutting the club down rather than just removing it's license I'll accept, and they were the smallest. They hadn't won a flag in 52 years when they were canned and had only made the finals 9 times (and 5 of those were in the 8 year period between 1979 and 1986).

That doesnt make any sense - the value each team provides in the TV rights deals is the extra games played each weekend.
20 teams = 10 games a weekend for the AFL to sell.
18 or even 16 teams (if we removed the 2 or 3 weakest vic sides) = less games each weekend which means less tv money.
Every team adds to the tv rights by giving AFL house more games to sell to fox and Seven.
Every team adds to the value of the tv rights.
At the end of the day the AFL wants more teams, but ones that sustain themselves and don’t require huge funds to stay in business. WA 3 is the obvious spot for expansion

The issue is that a 19th team adds nothing, still only 9 games per round, they may need to add an extra round so everyone still plays 23 games. Adding a 20th team adds an extra game per round and better TV deal. I agree that a 3rd WA team would be profitable and would reduce our travel schedule with an extra away game in WA, however it also creates extra competition for WA players and sponsors which may not be good for Freo in the long run. Personally think NT should get a team but it wouldn’t be as profitable for the league and wouldn’t help our travel schedule.

 

[anchor man]

Not necessarily, increase list sizes, and clubs will have to learn to manage players more often. 5 man bench could help with this too.

Where do all these new stars of the competition come from.
The standard of players in nthe AFL now is very substandard.So many kids taken that will never ever look like playing one game.
Some players that are playing at league level now should not be playing.
I always use the analogy of the cup of cordial, the more water you put in, the weaker your drink becomes.Same applies to the AFL.

 

[anchor man]

We junior development pathways are underfunded by the wafc. The afl spend a lot of money directly on juniors on the east coast. I can't recall what the actual dollars are, but there is a big difference.

If all wa talent stayed and were developed equally in wa. We would have 3 really strong teams.


Population of Victoria 7m ÷ 10 vic teams = .7m
Population of WA 3m ÷ 3 WA teams = 1m

The figures tell the story.

Both clubs here in WA do not have a large number of local boy playing inthe teams.Most of our beter players are taken over East.It matters not if our junior production is the best in the country, most will finish up playing for an East Coast team.This happens with the draft system and where clubs finish on the list.

 

[Orange crush]

Barret's opinion can be unbelievable garbage but he can be spot on
View attachment 1977807

This Pendles to Norf s**t is so stupid ... he's not even pulling his weight for the pies this year .... what does he offer for North?

 

[Spirit Level]

Lol at the idea of WA3, just plain stupid.

Either:

• Canberra, there's support there and it means the Giants can focus on Western Sydney
• F*ck North off, they don't fit anymore. Keep the league at 18 teams