I personally think this is just a case of the AFL not understanding the game's place in the overall scheme of things in Australian sport. Sydney and Queensland will not embrace 2nd teams in those two markets.
I think there is more than enough teams now with 16 teams. We currently do not have all sides playing eachother twice which leads to inequitable draws as it is. An expansion will only exacerbate this. Caroline Wilson (The Offsiders) was talking about having 17 rounds where you play the rest of the competition and then only 5 additonal games with an 18 team comp. What poppycock !
If we keep it as 16 teams then I really think each of those teams must play eachother twice. So that would mean doing away with the pre-season competition. It also may mean having less turnaround time between games. In which case you need to allow teams to have more players on their list.
Alternately John Harms on the Offsiders mentioned 20 teams - 2 divisions with promotion and relegation. That would mean everyone in each division would play eachother twice over 18 weeks. There are major problems with this in that no-one would want to be in the lower division and the talent pool problem.
Arent we endanger of spreading the talent a bit thin ? Perhaps the most logical solution is to contract the league and lose 2 teams. That would make for a 26 weeks, play eachother twice competition.
18 Team Competition - Yes or NO !
18 Team Competition - Yes or NO !
Menzie!!
Things go awry without Jye!!
Regards
MH_Bomber
No. The AFL should actually head to the gold coast one day themselves and look at the people there and what they want. Alot of Kiwis, so Rugby will be the #1 sport in their mind. Alot of former victorians who a) are probably too old to bother going to the footy these days or b) already have a team
It wont succeed unless the AFL shell out millions and millions of $, which will effect the clubs like Melbourne, Kangaroos and Bulldogs who rely heavily on the AFL to help them out.
Not to mention the fact that the quality of the drafts arent that strong so this will thin it out even more. We should be reducing the # of teams, not increasing it.
They need 11 clubs to green light the move, and Sydney and Brisbane will already oppose it, so need just 4 more to reject it.
It wont succeed unless the AFL shell out millions and millions of $, which will effect the clubs like Melbourne, Kangaroos and Bulldogs who rely heavily on the AFL to help them out.
Not to mention the fact that the quality of the drafts arent that strong so this will thin it out even more. We should be reducing the # of teams, not increasing it.
They need 11 clubs to green light the move, and Sydney and Brisbane will already oppose it, so need just 4 more to reject it.
He kicks on the left
He kicks on the riiiiiiiiigggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhttttttttttttt
That boy Hurley
Makes Riewoldt look shite!
He kicks on the riiiiiiiiigggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhttttttttttttt
That boy Hurley
Makes Riewoldt look shite!
No.
We dont have the population or money to go around for 20-30 team competitions like the US and the Premier League.
When the level of support is not even high enough to allow you to show games live on tv and still be confident of drawing a big crowd, you're kidding yourself if you think you can keep adding teams. Then again the current AFL administration have been kidding themselves for years anyway.
We dont have the population or money to go around for 20-30 team competitions like the US and the Premier League.
When the level of support is not even high enough to allow you to show games live on tv and still be confident of drawing a big crowd, you're kidding yourself if you think you can keep adding teams. Then again the current AFL administration have been kidding themselves for years anyway.
I find it amazing that the AFL continue to come up with these bullshit ideas. (imo) it is inevitable that there will be another team in Sydney and eventually on the Gold Coast but they really need to come out and say how those teams will be set up.
Where will the players come from?
The Brisbane Bears method was a disgrace and embarrassing to the code and so you would figure that the AFL willnot use that method again.
If they are determined to do it, then they have to play hard ball with some of the financial strugglers in Melbourne and stop propping them up.
18 teams just dilutes the talent base even further.
Where will the players come from?
The Brisbane Bears method was a disgrace and embarrassing to the code and so you would figure that the AFL willnot use that method again.
If they are determined to do it, then they have to play hard ball with some of the financial strugglers in Melbourne and stop propping them up.
18 teams just dilutes the talent base even further.
"You can quote me on this... He is gawn" - bomberdonnie re Hurley's contract status 25 February 2012
A. The AFL is entertaining the thought of cutting the number of rounds to 17. Idiots
B. We are struggling as it is to sustain clubs in Brisbane and Sydney (The former with the lowest membership in the league, the latter with the fickle-ist.)
C. The only thing that makes those two abovementioned clubs viable is the Melbourne-based support, something these new clubs will have to do without.
D. Splitting the Sydney market in two will have an effect on the Swans that I don't think the AFL have even taken into account.
E. Every single Gold Coast-based franchise in a national competition has failed. Simple as that.
F. Carrara isn't up to AFL standard, in fact it isn't even close really.
G. Homebush is home to 4 NRL clubs.
H. Sydney games do not rate in Sydney. They usually come in 4th on Saturday Nights, sometimes worse.
I. How many players are we going to lose to these new clubs?
K. Will it cost us a Grand Final?
L. If West Sydney was such a sure thing, why are there not consortiums falling over themselves to be granted a license?
M. Why have the clubs not been consulted about this? Instead, we have Fitzpatrick spillng the beans in the Sunday paper. Not a great way to conduct business.
N. Where are the financials that show that these two clubs will be sustainable?
O. What reassurances has the AFL given existing clubs about their future in their respective markets?
And finally, is it really worth the effort?
B. We are struggling as it is to sustain clubs in Brisbane and Sydney (The former with the lowest membership in the league, the latter with the fickle-ist.)
C. The only thing that makes those two abovementioned clubs viable is the Melbourne-based support, something these new clubs will have to do without.
D. Splitting the Sydney market in two will have an effect on the Swans that I don't think the AFL have even taken into account.
E. Every single Gold Coast-based franchise in a national competition has failed. Simple as that.
F. Carrara isn't up to AFL standard, in fact it isn't even close really.
G. Homebush is home to 4 NRL clubs.
H. Sydney games do not rate in Sydney. They usually come in 4th on Saturday Nights, sometimes worse.
I. How many players are we going to lose to these new clubs?
J. How many games are we going to lose to these two clubs with salary cap concessions/player zones/draft picks?"A more heated debate is likely to come when the AFL reveals the details of its plans to give the two new clubs access to 80 players, including some with AFL experience."
K. Will it cost us a Grand Final?
L. If West Sydney was such a sure thing, why are there not consortiums falling over themselves to be granted a license?
M. Why have the clubs not been consulted about this? Instead, we have Fitzpatrick spillng the beans in the Sunday paper. Not a great way to conduct business.
N. Where are the financials that show that these two clubs will be sustainable?
O. What reassurances has the AFL given existing clubs about their future in their respective markets?
And finally, is it really worth the effort?
