Where the AFL should be heading according to me!

[breed_of_dog]

In an ideal scenario, I reckon the AFL should be made up of 20 teams.

Add 4 brand new teams in Darwin, Tasmania, West Sydney and the Gold Coast makes a total of 20.

The doggies, Melbourne and North and any other struggling club at the time get to stay in Melbourne with Financial assistance if needed. Even if they have lower supporter bases, you still don't want to break the hearts of 20,000 die hard fans.

Could the AFL be able to just bite the bullet and offer ongoing support for forever? Surely the AFL can support the bottom teams when usually it is only 3-4 teams that need help.

What do you think? (I did say it was ideal)

[hujsh]

In an ideal scenario, I reckon the AFL should be made up of 20 teams.

Add 4 brand new teams in Darwin, Tasmania, West Sydney and the Gold Coast makes a total of 20.

The doggies, Melbourne and North and any other struggling club at the time get to stay in Melbourne with Financial assistance if needed. Even if they have lower supporter bases, you still don't want to break the hearts of 20,000 die hard fans.

Could the AFL be able to just bite the bullet and offer ongoing support for forever? Surely the AFL can support the bottom teams when usually it is only 3-4 teams that need help.

What do you think? (I did say it was ideal)

But the AFL doesn't think like that. For some reason they want 16 teams and teams in dif.fferent places as well. So someone has to go according to them

[GVGjr]

What does a 20 team competition give us?

Darwin's weather stops it from being a viable location.
Tassie is unlikely to be able to support a full team.
Gold Coast has some possibilities
Western Sydney has little appeal as far as I am concerned.

Canberra could have been an AFL city but the AFL missed out.
I'm also dubious about extra teams in WA or SA.

[hujsh]

I'm sure the teams would work over time. The AFL would never admit they were wrong and would pump the clubs with however much money is needed.

[soupman]

Also the talent pool would be diluted by the extra 4 teams. Getting 1 or 2 teams to a competitive standard would be hard to do without punishing the other clubs, let alone 4 new clubs.

[westdog54]

Also the talent pool would be diluted by the extra 4 teams. Getting 1 or 2 teams to a competitive standard would be hard to do without punishing the other clubs, let alone 4 new clubs.

I'm not a fan of expanding to 20 teams, but as far as the argument that 'the talent pool would be diluted', as far as I'm concerned it gives 232 players who otherwise wouldn't have made an AFL list the chance at a football career.

[bornadog]

I'm sure the teams would work over time. The AFL would never admit they were wrong and would pump the clubs with however much money is needed.

Yes, look at Sydney, after 25 years up there I don't believe they have had a BIG impact, an impact yes, but not a BIG impact. the money pumped up there is unbelievable. NSW and QLD are always going to be hard to penetrate.

[LostDoggy]

I like the fact that you are thinking big mate. I think the idea of expanding the AFL into new parts of the country is the right one and inevitable, just don't believe the AFL has anywhere near the amount of money it would take to support four new teams.

I often advocate for a Canberra team. The argument that the AFL "missed the boat" has been used since 1982. If we had ignored it and just got on with it 15 years ago a Canberra (or more realistically, Canberra-Queanbeyan-Wagga) team would be well established by now (and perhaps we would have several more James Hirds running around).

[breed_of_dog]

What does a 20 team competition give us?

Darwin's weather stops it from being a viable location.
Tassie is unlikely to be able to support a full team.
Gold Coast has some possibilities
Western Sydney has little appeal as far as I am concerned.

Canberra could have been an AFL city but the AFL missed out.
I'm also dubious about extra teams in WA or SA.

Thanks to all for your replies. I didn't think that far ahead for Darwin. Maybe they could renovate TIO stadium and turn it into an indoors stadium that blocks out the weather. ie make a smaller and cheaper version of Telstra Dome.

I figured Tasmania would have a smaller supporter base but different venues add the character to the AFL and therefore worth persuing.

As for Gold Coast and Western Sydney, they should get decent numbers.

I'm just thinking along the lines of whatever it takes to keep the dogs and even North and Melbourne etc - in Melbourne.

[bornadog]

I didn't think that far ahead for Darwin. Maybe they could renovate TIO stadium and turn it into an indoors stadium that blocks out the weather. ie make a smaller and cheaper version of Telstra Dome. .

Have you ever been up there to Darwin. Darwin is no bigger than Ballarat, there is no money to spend on TIO Stadium and the population is small.

I understand your thinking but the more teams the less money to go around. Sponsorship is the key and there just isn't enough of it to go around. In the ideal world, there wouldn't be ten teams in Victoria (I hate to say). We as a club just have to keep consolidating our position in the Western Suburbs of Melbourne and make it our own. The redevelpoment of Whitten Oval, Edgewater Club and other programmes all help us consolidate. On field performance and a premiership would be the big boost.

[FrediKanoute]

I'm not a fan of expanding to 20 teams, but as far as the argument that 'the talent pool would be diluted', as far as I'm concerned it gives 232 players who otherwise wouldn't have made an AFL list the chance at a football career.

Not sure of your maths but I understand your point. I think that that is probably a little overrated as an excuse the "dilution" of the pool. There are so many guys who don't make it but could have made it but for a chance or who were delisted in their mid-20's because of the need to bring in fresh blood. The dilution effect would be temporary, maybe 2-3 seasons at best and would then even out as players with a high degree of talent kick on and become even more talented in a competitive environment. Talent begats talent.

[mjp]

16 Teams is good.

2 in each of Perth and Adelaide.
1 in each of Brisbane and Sydney.
1 in each of the satellite cities (Geelong and Gold Coast - it is gonna happen).
8 in Melbourne.

Two conferences with 8 teams in each one - each year you play home and away within your conference, and each of your 'inter-conference opponents' twice. In this way, the season goes for 22 games and there is no 'bias' in terms of schedules for the finals.

Each 'conference' has a Page system type finals system (first semi, second semi, prelim, conference championship), followed by the grand final between the two winners.

I am honestly sick of proposals talking about playing 30 games etc to 'equalise' the draw - the draw can be equalised with 16 teams, but we just have to split into two.

Barassi Conference:

Collingwood
Essendon
Saints
Hawks
Gold Coast
Sydney
Port Adelaide
West Coast

Whitten Conference:
Richmond
Carlton
Dogs
Dees/North (whoever is left)
Cats
Brisbane
Adelaide
Fremantle

As for the whole rivalry thing etc, splitting up Adelaide/Port, Freo/WCE etc can be sold pretty easily - you will never play off in a grand final unless you do this.

[LostDoggy]

16 Teams is good.

2 in each of Perth and Adelaide.
1 in each of Brisbane and Sydney.
1 in each of the satellite cities (Geelong and Gold Coast - it is gonna happen).
8 in Melbourne.

Two conferences with 8 teams in each one - each year you play home and away within your conference, and each of your 'inter-conference opponents' twice. In this way, the season goes for 22 games and there is no 'bias' in terms of schedules for the finals.

Each 'conference' has a Page system type finals system (first semi, second semi, prelim, conference championship), followed by the grand final between the two winners.

I am honestly sick of proposals talking about playing 30 games etc to 'equalise' the draw - the draw can be equalised with 16 teams, but we just have to split into two.

Barassi Conference:

Collingwood
Essendon
Saints
Hawks
Gold Coast
Sydney
Port Adelaide
West Coast

Whitten Conference:
Richmond
Carlton
Dogs
Dees/North (whoever is left)
Cats
Brisbane
Adelaide
Fremantle

As for the whole rivalry thing etc, splitting up Adelaide/Port, Freo/WCE etc can be sold pretty easily - you will never play off in a grand final unless you do this.

Dont like it. The draw is no better than it is now. Leave it the way it has been for 100yrs

[mjp]

Dont like it. The draw is no better than it is now. Leave it the way it has been for 100yrs

How so is the draw no better? Every team you are measured against plays the same schedule as you. What part of that dont you like?

As for the same way it has been for 100years, VFL footy was 12 sides, 2 rounds, 22 games home and away. Todays schedule is VASTLY different to that.

I am happy if you dont like it - fine. But to say that not changing the structure is to support traditional fixturing is simply wrong - traditional fixturing was 2 rounds, home and away - we are miles from that at the moment.

[LostDoggy]

How so is the draw no better? Every team you are measured against plays the same schedule as you. What part of that dont you like?

As for the same way it has been for 100years, VFL footy was 12 sides, 2 rounds, 22 games home and away. Todays schedule is VASTLY different to that.

I am happy if you dont like it - fine. But to say that not changing the structure is to support traditional fixturing is simply wrong - traditional fixturing was 2 rounds, home and away - we are miles from that at the moment.

What happens if there is a 'soft' conference? One of those freak years where the 4 best sides are all in the same conference.
Leave it in the traditional sense, one league and then a final series. The draw is never going to be completely fair. Neither is a golf tournament when half tee's off in the AM and half PM. Its just the way it is

[mjp]

What happens if there is a 'soft' conference? One of those freak years where the 4 best sides are all in the same conference.
Leave it in the traditional sense, one league and then a final series. The draw is never going to be completely fair. Neither is a golf tournament when half tee's off in the AM and half PM. Its just the way it is

Now - those are reasons I can understand and talk about.

At least if there is a 'soft' conference, those 'softer' teams are fighting it out against one another...in todays footy, two evenly matched teams can finishes 2 or 3 wins apart simply because of the schedule. That annoys me no end - the AFL says it tries to even these things out, but because of the cap/draft and pull towards parity, it is impossible to pre-emptively assess strength of schedule.

After all, the 'good' conference will always get right of reply in the Grand Final.

I know that the draw is uneven, and I know it will never be perfect. I am convinced it can be better though...

[LostDoggy]

Now - those are reasons I can understand and talk about.

At least if there is a 'soft' conference, those 'softer' teams are fighting it out against one another...in todays footy, two evenly matched teams can finishes 2 or 3 wins apart simply because of the schedule. That annoys me no end - the AFL says it tries to even these things out, but because of the cap/draft and pull towards parity, it is impossible to pre-emptively assess strength of schedule.

After all, the 'good' conference will always get right of reply in the Grand Final.

I know that the draw is uneven, and I know it will never be perfect. I am convinced it can be better though...

Im not convinced with the conference system the 4 best sides will get to prelim final day. The 2 best from each conference might, maybe not the 4 from the whole comp

[Sockeye Salmon]

16 Teams is good.

2 in each of Perth and Adelaide.
1 in each of Brisbane and Sydney.
1 in each of the satellite cities (Geelong and Gold Coast - it is gonna happen).
8 in Melbourne.

Two conferences with 8 teams in each one - each year you play home and away within your conference, and each of your 'inter-conference opponents' twice. In this way, the season goes for 22 games and there is no 'bias' in terms of schedules for the finals.

Each 'conference' has a Page system type finals system (first semi, second semi, prelim, conference championship), followed by the grand final between the two winners.

I am honestly sick of proposals talking about playing 30 games etc to 'equalise' the draw - the draw can be equalised with 16 teams, but we just have to split into two.

Barassi Conference:

Collingwood
Essendon
Saints
Hawks
Gold Coast
Sydney
Port Adelaide
West Coast

Whitten Conference:
Richmond
Carlton
Dogs
Dees/North (whoever is left)
Cats
Brisbane
Adelaide
Fremantle

As for the whole rivalry thing etc, splitting up Adelaide/Port, Freo/WCE etc can be sold pretty easily - you will never play off in a grand final unless you do this.

I've written 20 posts over the last few years saying basically the same thing.

I think you've got one or two very minor points wrong.

* The finals should be a combined Page system.
1st (Barassi) v 2nd (Whitten) - winner to prelim A, loser to qualifying A
1st (W) v 2nd (B) - winner to prelim B, loser to qualifying B
3rd 9B) v 4th (W) - Winner to qualifying A, loser eliminated
3rd (W) v 4th (B) - Winner to qualifying B, loser eliminated

In this system if the two best teams are from the same conference they can play off in the grand final, regardless of where they're from.

* Leave Port and Adelaide in one conference and West Coast and Freo in the other. Less travel for everyone and give the supporters two Showdowns/Derbies a year. If (when) Gold Coast come in they should be included in the same conference as Brisbane (probably in the Adelaide conference, you don't want clubs going to Perth and Brisbane twice each year).

* Split Essendon and Collingwood. Let them keep Anzac Day but it will be their only H & A match each year. This evens up the financial side a bit with every club getting three home games against these two sides every two years.

* Conferences can be altered every two years on a rotating schedule to even out any travel discrepancies (why do we have to travel to Perth when they only have to go to Adelaide, boo hoo).

My conferences

Barassi

West Coast
Freo
Sydney
Essendon
Richmond
St. Kilda
Geelong
Hawthorn



Whitten

Adelaide
Port Adelaide
Brisbane
Gold Coast
Collingwood
Carlton
Melbourne
Western Bulldogs

[mjp]

Im not convinced with the conference system the 4 best sides will get to prelim final day. The 2 best from each conference might, maybe not the 4 from the whole comp

Yep - I accept that.

Perhaps Sockeye's similar system with a different finals structure is better?

[LostDoggy]

Yep - I accept that.

Perhaps Sockeye's similar system with a different finals structure is better?

Sockeyes final structure is better. Still would hate to see the conference system.

[aker39]

I've written 20 posts over the last few years saying basically the same thing.

I think you've got one or two very minor points wrong.

* The finals should be a combined Page system.
1st (Barassi) v 2nd (Whitten) - winner to prelim A, loser to qualifying A
1st (W) v 2nd (B) - winner to prelim B, loser to qualifying B
3rd 9B) v 4th (W) - Winner to qualifying A, loser eliminated
3rd (W) v 4th (B) - Winner to qualifying B, loser eliminated

In this system if the two best teams are from the same conference they can play off in the grand final, regardless of where they're from.

* Leave Port and Adelaide in one conference and West Coast and Freo in the other. Less travel for everyone and give the supporters two Showdowns/Derbies a year. If (when) Gold Coast come in they should be included in the same conference as Brisbane (probably in the Adelaide conference, you don't want clubs going to Perth and Brisbane twice each year).

* Split Essendon and Collingwood. Let them keep Anzac Day but it will be their only H & A match each year. This evens up the financial side a bit with every club getting three home games against these two sides every two years.

* Conferences can be altered every two years on a rotating schedule to even out any travel discrepancies (why do we have to travel to Perth when they only have to go to Adelaide, boo hoo).

My conferences

Barassi

West Coast
Freo
Sydney
Essendon
Richmond
St. Kilda
Geelong
Hawthorn



Whitten

Adelaide
Port Adelaide
Brisbane
Gold Coast
Collingwood
Carlton
Melbourne
Western Bulldogs


That makes too much sense for the AFL to ever consider it.

[The Underdog]

Wouldn't the conferences be called Coventry and Buckley?

[bornadog]

According to the age today, Gold Coast will start 2011 and Western Sydney 2012 making it an 18 team competition.

[LostDoggy]

There is a balance to be found between growing the game (which I think is important) and doing it in a way that does not rip the heart out of game.

Growth into any and all urban areas of Australia is viable in a long-term sense (I'm talking in 20 to 50 years if we start the process now). When we say things like the Gold Coast or West Sydney is not viable it's probably because we've been so spoilt as to what constitutes a good crowd. Even the English Premier League, one of the world's most successful sporting competitions, outside of the top four to eight teams, do not get an average crowd of more than 20,000. So I can understand why the AFL wants to push into these areas. I think even four or five new clubs with stable average memberships of 20,000 or so will be valuable additions to the competition. Not every club has to be a mega-club.

I also, by extension, don't agree with the converse argument that 10 teams are too many for Melbourne. Even the Roos, who are supposed to be the weakest team here financially, will have close to 30,000 members and probably the same again in terms of fans who are not members. How is 60,000 fans not supposed to represent a significant chunk of support for the AFL as a 'product'? Also, every single existing club in the AFL currently is a major part of the brand -- you cannot get rid of a single club without damaging the brand in some way -- witness South Melbourne and Fitzroy people still wandering around hurt after ten/twenty years.

And for all those worried about the rumours of the Dogs relocation to West Sydney, the AFL would have to be seriously unintelligent to even consider that. While it has potential, no one can argue that West Sydney is more ripe for AFL brand exploitation than the West of Melbourne, still far under-saturated as far as AFL penetration goes, and no club is better positioned to take advantage of that fact than the Western Bulldogs (Geelong and Essendon will do their best to interfere but they are geographically and culturally at best square pegs in round holes as far as the next ten/twenty years of development in the western suburbs of Melbourne are concerned). If you think the West of Sydney is going to explode just wait for the imminent explosion economically and culturally out west-way over here.

If we are thinking truly long term, there is no reason the 'traditional' clubs cannot coexist with the new 'franchise' clubs. SS or mjp's conference system or a more vertical division (first and second division with relegations/promotions) or an entirely new system will have to be used to even out the draw, but it can't be any worse than the ridiculously lopsided system we already have at present, so anything is an improvement in any case. The viability of clubs long-term may not be dependent on local fans anyway. The AFL will have to continue to develop as a TV product for an (even limited) international market. Arsenal in the UK until they moved to the Emirates Stadium recently only had a 25,000 seat capacity stadium, yet are one of the biggest, richest and best followed teams in England. Arsene Wenger said just last week that 80% of their fans are outside the UK. The NBA, MLB and NFL teams in the US are primarily TV products for an international audience now, even while local fans continue to love and follow their teams.

Can you imagine a day when our old crusty Doggies' memberships are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars to fans in Japan and South Africa over ebay, while we pass them on to our kids and grandkids?

ps. very general and quickly typed up, so don't please don't take me to task over too many details -- I know the analogies I've used aren't precise nor were they meant to be, more just general ideas.

[LostDoggy]

ps. I know that American and UK sports having global audiences are largely a product of their previous or current global influence, but don't underestimate the influence Australia potentially has on our northern neighbours, welcome or otherwise. (In this sense the move of the Socceroos into Asia may actually turn out to have a welcome by-product of 'globalising' Australian products -- sport especially -- even further..)

[Sockeye Salmon]

While we're playing 'let's pretend', how about we keep the same 16 clubs that we've already got and introduce a 2nd tier national comp.

Gold Coast (Southport perhaps?)
Brisbane Reserves
West Sydney
Sydney Reserves
Canberra
VFL (Port Melbourne perhaps?)
SANFL (Norwood, Centrals, a combined side?)
WAFL (Claremont, Subiaco, a combined side?)
Tassie
Northern Territory


This would:

Give decent competition for Brisbane and Sydney reserves
Start a club culture at Gold Coast and West Sydney and starts off local interest.
Give an environment for those who have missed their AFL boat another place to show recruiters what they've got.
Allow established footy fans in Tassie and the NT to have an interest at a State level.

If an AFL club fell over financially Gold Coast or West Sydney would already be established to take their place in the AFL.

[mjp]

While we're playing 'let's pretend', how about we keep the same 16 clubs that we've already got and introduce a 2nd tier national comp.

Gold Coast (Southport perhaps?)
Brisbane Reserves
West Sydney
Sydney Reserves
Canberra
VFL (Port Melbourne perhaps?)
SANFL (Norwood, Centrals, a combined side?)
WAFL (Claremont, Subiaco, a combined side?)
Tassie
Northern Territory


This would:

Give decent competition for Brisbane and Sydney reserves
Start a club culture at Gold Coast and West Sydney and starts off local interest.
Give an environment for those who have missed their AFL boat another place to show recruiters what they've got.
Allow established footy fans in Tassie and the NT to have an interest at a State level.

If an AFL club fell over financially Gold Coast or West Sydney would already be established to take their place in the AFL.

Talk about further decimating what is left of 2nd Tier footy SS...

[bornadog]

Talk about further decimating what is left of 2nd Tier footy SS...

don't worry mike, you will be the coach of the combined team in WA:D

[LostDoggy]

No one discussed yet how ridiculous the AFL plan for 18 clubs is? I've already mentioned I can't understand why they would be expanding when the current set up isn't right yet
If the AFL was to expand why go to West Sydney and Gold Coast where they are certain to fail? Wouldn't places like Tasmania and NT be safer bets?
There is something else behind all this as it all reeks of jealously and competition against other codes.
I very much doubt there will be new teams made. I have no doubt what the AFL want is for 2 teams to move there.

[bornadog]

No one discussed yet how ridiculous the AFL plan for 18 clubs is? I've already mentioned I can't understand why they would be expanding when the current set up isn't right yet
If the AFL was to expand why go to West Sydney and Gold Coast where they are certain to fail? Wouldn't places like Tasmania and NT be safer bets?
There is something else behind all this as it all reeks of jealously and competition against other codes.
I very much doubt there will be new teams made. I have no doubt what the AFL want is for 2 teams to move there.

NT and and Tassie are small markets, Gold Coast and West Sydney are two of the fastest growing areas in Australia. Having said that, I believe they will cut funding to existing clubs after 2009 and then its sink or swim and then move for those that don't make it.

Where should the AFL Be heading. If the AFL were fair dinkum about expanding into these areas, they need to hit them with a bang. You have to look at Clubs that don't don't really represent a decent geological area

Carlton - small suburb
Collingwood - the brand can work anywhere.
Essendon - Northern Suburbs
Geelong - covered
Hawthorn - Eastern Suburbs/Tassie
Melbourne - unfortunatelty untouchable to move, but can merge
North Melb - very small base
Richmond - small suburb
St Kilda - Possible to represent South East Suburbs
Dogs - Western Suburbs

In an Ideal World based on the above, North would move North, Richmond to hit West Sydney. Yes I know it sounds controversial but if you want a club to succeed in Western Sydney, they have to come with a ready made supporter base. Other candidates would be either Collingwood or Carlton, yes you read correctly. Why not? Why should a club that has a small membership base be moved before a bigger club. The Collingwood and Carlton brands are big and can work anywhere in Australia. Imagine Collingwood in West Sydney, boy the game would really grow and they could become massive.

I know it wouldn't happen, but we are talking shit here anyway.

[FrediKanoute]

16 Teams is good.

2 in each of Perth and Adelaide.
1 in each of Brisbane and Sydney.
1 in each of the satellite cities (Geelong and Gold Coast - it is gonna happen).
8 in Melbourne.

Two conferences with 8 teams in each one - each year you play home and away within your conference, and each of your 'inter-conference opponents' twice. In this way, the season goes for 22 games and there is no 'bias' in terms of schedules for the finals.

Each 'conference' has a Page system type finals system (first semi, second semi, prelim, conference championship), followed by the grand final between the two winners.

I am honestly sick of proposals talking about playing 30 games etc to 'equalise' the draw - the draw can be equalised with 16 teams, but we just have to split into two.

Barassi Conference:

Collingwood
Essendon
Saints
Hawks
Gold Coast
Sydney
Port Adelaide
West Coast

Whitten Conference:
Richmond
Carlton
Dogs
Dees/North (whoever is left)
Cats
Brisbane
Adelaide
Fremantle

As for the whole rivalry thing etc, splitting up Adelaide/Port, Freo/WCE etc can be sold pretty easily - you will never play off in a grand final unless you do this.

I don't mind splitting the competition so much, but it does have a very "USA" flavour to it and I'm not convinced that they are the best role models re sport. If I had to criticise, my issue is that what happens if a conference becomes stronger than the other conference or how do you resolve the siutation that the 2 best teams could actually be from the same conference and thus never meet in a GF.

If I had to give a personal view - expand the number of games by including midweek games, but make the midweek games shorter and cap the number of games an individual player can play per year at 22, 26 if the team plays finals. To compensate, provide 2 extra spots on the main list and 3 extra Rookie spots which are "unrestricted" in that they don't have to be below a certain age or number of games. Conceivaby this would mean you have someone like Whitnall on your list there to play a handfull of games as a top up player. It could end up prolonging the life of some players by allowing them to become part-time players and since any one player cannot play more than 22 games in a season there is little risk in overworking a player.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Talk about further decimating what is left of 2nd Tier footy SS...

We wouldn't need them anymore!!!

















:eek::D

[Topdog]

Even the English Premier League, one of the world's most successful sporting competitions, outside of the top four to eight teams, do not get an average crowd of more than 20,000. .

Averages for 07. Bear in mind Derby are last and Sunderland are 4th or 5th last.

Also teams like Tottenham, Chelsea and Westham have lower averages than the reality. The only reason they don't average 50K a match is because they don't have big enough grounds. In fact most clubs average well over 90% capacity, that is just huge.

1. Manchester United, Old Trafford, 75,614
2. Arsenal, Emirates Stadium, 60,021
3. Newcastle United, St. James' Park, 50,778
4. Liverpool, Anfield, 44,065
5. Manchester City, City of Manchester Stadium, 42,278
6. Sunderland, Stadium of Light, 41,906
7. Chelsea, Stamford Bridge, 41,564
8. Aston Villa, Villa Park, 39,950
9. Everton, Goodison Park, 36,587
10. Tottenham Hotspur, White Hart Lane, 35,910
11. West Ham United, Boleyn Ground, 34,469
12. Derby County, Pride Park, 32,172
13. Middlesbrough, Riverside Stadium, 26,809
14. Birmingham City, St. Andrews, 26,434
15. Blackburn Rovers, Ewood Park, 23,346
16. Reading, Madejski Stadium, 23,161
17. Fulham, Craven Cottage, 22,310
18. Bolton Wanderers, Reebok Stadium, 21,047
19. Portsmouth, Fratton Park, 19,727
20. Wigan Athletic, JJB Stadium, 18,439

Also I think it is very unrealistic to think that 18 teams could average 20k. We don't even have that many doing it at the moment and with Australia being an aging population coupled with our relatively low pop. I really don't think that it could be done. There are too many other sports that are popular and to think that the AFL could just waltz into GC and Western Sydney and get more people attending than sports that already have a strong hold is pretty far fetched IMO. I think the GC thing is doomed for failure.

[Twodogs]

I really, really like the idea of 16 clubs and a 30 round season that goes for a longer period of time. EPL play 38 rounds plus cup and European competitions so the argument about it being to taxing on the players isnt neccesarily true.


We'd need to change the way we break up the season. My suggestion is that we break the season into 6 5 week blocks with breaks of two weeks for each team between each block. You could coordinate it so that teams are playing at different times so theres always games to show and the extra games would give the competion to play games for points all over Australia or even the World.

[Topdog]

Agree 100% with the above. Perhaps 2 weeks break is a little long for my liking But yeah you could give1 group of 8 teams the week off so there are still 4 games (Fri night, Sat aft / night, Sunday) in those 2 weeks. Piss the NAB cup off with teams playing friendly matches pre season when they would like so they wouldn't have to worry about the heat or length of quarters and still be able to get some conditioning done.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I really, really like the idea of 16 clubs and a 30 round season that goes for a longer period of time. EPL play 38 rounds plus cup and European competitions so the argument about it being to taxing on the players isnt neccesarily true.


We'd need to change the way we break up the season. My suggestion is that we break the season into 6 5 week blocks with breaks of two weeks for each team between each block. You could coordinate it so that teams are playing at different times so theres always games to show and the extra games would give the competion to play games for points all over Australia or even the World.

In soccer you don't have 100kg blokes wrapping their arms around you and throwing you into the ground nor do you and another muscle bound monster collide running flat out from different directions.

Two divisions is the only way to do it.

[LostDoggy]

Nice stats there Topdog. :)

I probably meant 'in the 20,000s' rather than less than 20,000, but your point is taken. I was probably thinking of the early 2000s as well (when the BSkyB deal fell through and attendances were pretty bad as I recall) as I haven't looked at the average attendances recently -- probably should have done my research!

I know that in the Championship (the tier below the EPL) attendances are far below that of the EPL. To a certain extent the attendance figures in the EPL is inflated by most of the matches' status as year-round tourist attractions (which I know that the AFL is starting to do by marketing footy matches as 'experiences' for tourists).

Currently AFL matches attract around 35,000 people on average for a h/a match and around 65,000 for a regular finals match (not the Grand Final). Trends show that this is increasing not decreasing.

Of course a team can't just 'waltz in' and expect huge (or even decent) crowds for a while, but I think when talking about these things we really have to have long, long-term views in mind -- twenty years down the track at least. In twenty years the AFL will either have a team in every major region in Australia or it won't. The same arguments against expansion were raised when Sydney was proposed, but the competition would be a much poorer place today without a Sydney team. If a way to establish that team without killing South Melbourne could have been found there would have been no negatives from that move.

We keep using the Bears as an example of a failed venture, but that was in a very different time, and a very different competition dynamic, in a very different world: where there were hardly any multi-million dollar clubs (if any), television rights were not worth potentially $1 billion dollars, the internet was still very much in its infancy and therefore news traveled slower and less far, globalisation was still emerging from the shadow of the cold war, sponsorship dollars were far less value for money, and other sports like League and soccer still had very niche or regional audiences. In the climate going forward, most sports fans are becoming far more catholic in their tastes and even on this, a forum of an AFL team, we have soccer fans etc, which would have been unheard of only ten years ago. I am personally a Storm fan, a Victory member, as well as a dedicated long-time Dogs member. In the trend towards growing affluence the average Australian is going to be able to support more of their local teams and will be attracted to do so, especially in a recognised, established and prestigious competition, such as the AFL.

League is expanding, and soccer is coming fast. I believe that all codes can survive and thrive, but it would be a mistake for footy to just rest on its laurels and not get into every nook and cranny of the country. AFL expands or it dies (in my opinion, anyway). :)

[wimberga]

I think the problem with AFL being a TOURIST attraction is that, as a uniquely Australian game, no-one could come to just one game and understand the bloody thing. lol

Is there such a problem with pissing off the Nab Cup, extending hte season and perhaps giving a few week long breaks to teams? the draw should be FAIR, every team plays the other 15 twice, once home and once away. The AFL is just very poorly run in there creation and planning of a draw that does not give birth to an even competition but a larger wallet.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I think the problem with AFL being a TOURIST attraction is that, as a uniquely Australian game, no-one could come to just one game and understand the bloody thing. lol

Is there such a problem with pissing off the Nab Cup, extending hte season and perhaps giving a few week long breaks to teams? the draw should be FAIR, every team plays the other 15 twice, once home and once away. The AFL is just very poorly run in there creation and planning of a draw that does not give birth to an even competition but a larger wallet.

Yes. There would be no players fit enough by the end of the season to play in the finals.

Even if we got rid of the NAB cup, coaches are going to want to play practice matches before the season starts, they'd have to start them in December!

The only way is two conferences (3 if they go to 18 teams)

[The Underdog]

Yes. There would be no players fit enough by the end of the season to play in the finals.

Even if we got rid of the NAB cup, coaches are going to want to play practice matches before the season starts, they'd have to start them in December!

The only way is two conferences (3 if they go to 18 teams)

The Player's Association would never go for a longer season either.
As you said the physical toll of a 30 round season would just destroy most players. Many players careers would be shortened. Most are injured by the time the season ends and playing through some sort of pain. As much admiration as I have for soccer/football players the physical toll of the game is less. Shorter games with less physical contact.

[LostDoggy]

The Player's Association would never go for a longer season either.
As you said the physical toll of a 30 round season would just destroy most players. Many players careers would be shortened. Most are injured by the time the season ends and playing through some sort of pain. As much admiration as I have for soccer/football players the physical toll of the game is less. Shorter games with less physical contact.

The PA has too much say and is led by an idiot. I bet with a bit of extra income the players will bend over for anyone.
Easiest thing to do is scrap the BS cup and you have 5 weeks already extra. Besides there will never be 18 teams.

[The Underdog]

The PA has too much say and is led by an idiot. I bet with a bit of extra income the players will bend over for anyone.
Easiest thing to do is scrap the BS cup and you have 5 weeks already extra. Besides there will never be 18 teams.

Yeah but an extra 5 weeks of proper competition is a lot different to 5 weeks of easing players into the season in a BS comp. I just don't think a 30 week season plus finals is feasible without just burning players out way earlier. At what point do the players get a rest? And do we put up with the first 4 week being of a rubbish standard as teams work their way into a seaosn without practice games. I'd love to see footy 52 weeks a year but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. We either work out a way around it (less teams, conferences) or we make do with what we've got.

[Twodogs]

The PA has too much say and is led by an idiot. I bet with a bit of extra income the players will bend over for anyone.
Easiest thing to do is scrap the BS cup and you have 5 weeks already extra. Besides there will never be 18 teams.



It's a miracle-we agree on something!

[Twodogs]

Yeah but an extra 5 weeks of proper competition is a lot different to 5 weeks of easing players into the season in a BS comp. I just don't think a 30 week season plus finals is feasible without just burning players out way earlier. At what point do the players get a rest? And do we put up with the first 4 week being of a rubbish standard as teams work their way into a seaosn without practice games. I'd love to see footy 52 weeks a year but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. We either work out a way around it (less teams, conferences) or we make do with what we've got.



With a 30 week season over a longer period of time the players get more time to rest than they do now. ATM they get 2 X 1 week breaks with this system they'd get 5 or 6 2 week breaks.

[Sockeye Salmon]

With a 30 week season over a longer period of time the players get more time to rest than they do now. ATM they get 2 X 1 week breaks with this system they'd get 5 or 6 2 week breaks.

6 x 2 week breaks = 12 weeks + 30 matches = 42 weeks + finals = 46 weeks. that leaves 6 weeks.

2 weeks for end of season trips and drinkathons.
1 week for the trade period.
1 week for the draft camp/national draft.
That leaves 2 weeks for families and pre-season training.

Anything else we can squeeze in so we don't waste those two weeks? International rules or SOO perhaps?

[The Underdog]

6 x 2 week breaks = 12 weeks + 30 matches = 42 weeks + finals = 46 weeks. that leaves 6 weeks.

2 weeks for end of season trips and drinkathons.
1 week for the trade period.
1 week for the draft camp/national draft.
That leaves 2 weeks for families and pre-season training.

Anything else we can squeeze in so we don't waste those two weeks? International rules or SOO perhaps?

Lucky they're entertainers and not people.
I'm not sure i could afford a 30 game membership either.

[Twodogs]

6 x 2 week breaks = 12 weeks + 30 matches = 42 weeks + finals = 46 weeks. that leaves 6 weeks.

2 weeks for end of season trips and drinkathons.
1 week for the trade period.
1 week for the draft camp/national draft.
That leaves 2 weeks for families and pre-season training.

Anything else we can squeeze in so we don't waste those two weeks? International rules or SOO perhaps?


6 weeks annual leave is the standard amount.


They can get pissed in their own time


Players dont work during the trade period and dont attend draft camp or select young players in the ND. You're just looking for problems.

[wimberga]

I think there are some similar thinking's that we can all agree on in here.

1) The AFL is poorly run
2) The draw needs to be fairer
3) The AFLPA is run by an Idiot and has too much say in affairs

Can we agree on at least these 3 principles? fixing them is a different matter.

I personally belief that just playing each team twice, once at home and once away is the fairest way ot go. Maybe through conferences or something that can be less taxing on the teams etc, but that is the fairest way.

[hujsh]

I think there are some similar thinking's that we can all agree on in here.

1) The AFL is poorly run
2) The draw needs to be fairer
3) The AFLPA is run by an Idiot and has too much say in affairs

Can we agree on at least these 3 principles? fixing them is a different matter.

I personally belief that just playing each team twice, once at home and once away is the fairest way ot go. Maybe through conferences or something that can be less taxing on the teams etc, but that is the fairest way.

That one more than any should be agreed with because we got a really crap draw last year. I'm not using it as an excuse as we played poorly but to play so many good teams twice was a shame.

[hargs37]

Here's something different. Why wouldmnt the league actually have a draw. Like pulling balls out of a hat, and that way they cant colude and keep the league uneven. that's right because eddie wouldn't have a bar of having to play the dogs twice and only play Carlton and Essendon once, and not on Anzac day! They might even have to...shock horror...travel interstate more than three times, and leave the plush surroundings of The G. Gives me th irrits big time that to even up the competition, we need an even competition. That isn't a typo!