Help needed with some history info

[Mic]

Again thanks for your comments!

[DOC]

Mic: For the perspective of your students, I am a life long South Adelaide supporter and do follow the Crows. I would not have followed any other clubs in the AFL such as Port or the touted Sturt/Norwood merger.

a. Why do you think a national competition (the AFL) introduced in 1990?

Fear: It was get bigger or perhaps be overtaken, The VFL was in my opinion the greatest one city sports comp in the world (and yes I know Geelong is down the road) but the modern world was coming quickly.

b. How do you think football has changed in Australia since the beginning of the AFL?

For one thing, it has stopped being a game for the players to be followed by people who go to the ground. In a practical sense, the players are now professionals which has meant that they are more athletic. However, I don't believe that this makes for a better spectacle always.

c. Do you think the introduction of the AFL has been good or bad for football in Australia? Why?

For me, BAD. Why? Because for me the greatest thing in football was to watch South play and hopefully win at 2.20 on a Saturday afternoon. That for me was why I followed football. It was blokes I knew, played with, went to school with, who fixed my car, served me at the butchers etc. Back at the club after a game, we were together. They were my club representing the area I lived in and to me that was the most important thing. Now it is a complete business with little of the values that I see as important.

[Mic]

Thanks.

[bays2011]

On a less than complimentary note, Victorians have always been protectionists, going right back to before Federation, so you could argue they should have been the last people involved to run a national competition.
On the other side of the coin, whilst to many it is still not a true national comp, and it irks me that some of the Victorian sides are still there simply because they are Victorian, expanding out of an existing comp rather than starting something new from scratch has worked well for the AFL and NRL, compared to other sports such as soccer, baseball and basketball. So would a truly national comp be as strong as the AFL is today or would it have had the same problems as other sports?

I think the NRL should be used as an example of how not to form a national comp. My memory (happy to be corrected) is that the ARL was a renamed version of the NSWRL and then there was the new Superleague with a lot of new clubs, a lot of which have folded. The NRL is the end product of the rugby league war. While the end result might be ok the process was far from good for the game.
It might irk you that some Victorian side are there because they are Victorian but their supporters are just as passionate about their clubs as anyone else. To get rid of these sides just because they are Victorian clubs would mean a lot of disenfranchised supporters who would be potentially lost to the game.

Except it's funny how the passionate supporters in the traditional Australian Rules state of Tasmania have been overlooked and instead the AFL has decided to put a new franchise into Western Sydney. No prizes for guessing what motivated that decision.
And it isn't just a matter of "getting rid of clubs just because they are Victorian", it is simply not commercially viable to have so many teams in Melbourne. Hence clubs like North Melbourne and Footscray (I will call them "The Western Bulldogs" when they move to Perth) are on continual AFL life support.
I feel disenfranchised because my club is no longer in a top-tier competition, a fact about which AFL would not be overly concerned.

[Strawb]

a. Why do you think a national competition (the AFL) introduced in 1990?
The then VFL/AFL had Port Adelaide in its pocket and was pressuring the SANFL to make a move to get a South Australian team into the competition. Also they already had Sydney, Brisbane and Perth so the name change was needed to keep them all happy.

b. How do you think football has changed in Australia since the beginning of the AFL?
It is no longer the Peoples game it is all about dollars. It is a business they want the leagues to bow down to them. There is not more national football conference which makes the rules. The AFL makes the rules. The people are not considered in the game any more. There is only Geelong left in Victoria that has a True home ground.

c. Do you think the introduction of the AFL has been good or bad for football in Australia? Why?
It is killing the game people are still interested but for how long. Local comps are suffering because they need to appease the AFL and make them happy.

[Mr Beefy]

On a less than complimentary note, Victorians have always been protectionists, going right back to before Federation, so you could argue they should have been the last people involved to run a national competition.
On the other side of the coin, whilst to many it is still not a true national comp, and it irks me that some of the Victorian sides are still there simply because they are Victorian, expanding out of an existing comp rather than starting something new from scratch has worked well for the AFL and NRL, compared to other sports such as soccer, baseball and basketball. So would a truly national comp be as strong as the AFL is today or would it have had the same problems as other sports?

I think the NRL should be used as an example of how not to form a national comp. My memory (happy to be corrected) is that the ARL was a renamed version of the NSWRL and then there was the new Superleague with a lot of new clubs, a lot of which have folded. The NRL is the end product of the rugby league war. While the end result might be ok the process was far from good for the game.
It might irk you that some Victorian side are there because they are Victorian but their supporters are just as passionate about their clubs as anyone else. To get rid of these sides just because they are Victorian clubs would mean a lot of disenfranchised supporters who would be potentially lost to the game.

Except it's funny how the passionate supporters in the traditional Australian Rules state of Tasmania have been overlooked and instead the AFL has decided to put a new franchise into Western Sydney. No prizes for guessing what motivated that decision.
And it isn't just a matter of "getting rid of clubs just because they are Victorian", it is simply not commercially viable to have so many teams in Melbourne. Hence clubs like North Melbourne and Footscray (I will call them "The Western Bulldogs" when they move to Perth) are on continual AFL life support.
I feel disenfranchised because my club is no longer in a top-tier competition, a fact about which AFL would not be overly concerned.

I was referencing the previous post who said "some of the Victorian sides are still there simply because they are Victorian". Is it commercially viable to put a side in Tassie?

[bays2011]

On a less than complimentary note, Victorians have always been protectionists, going right back to before Federation, so you could argue they should have been the last people involved to run a national competition.
On the other side of the coin, whilst to many it is still not a true national comp, and it irks me that some of the Victorian sides are still there simply because they are Victorian, expanding out of an existing comp rather than starting something new from scratch has worked well for the AFL and NRL, compared to other sports such as soccer, baseball and basketball. So would a truly national comp be as strong as the AFL is today or would it have had the same problems as other sports?

I think the NRL should be used as an example of how not to form a national comp. My memory (happy to be corrected) is that the ARL was a renamed version of the NSWRL and then there was the new Superleague with a lot of new clubs, a lot of which have folded. The NRL is the end product of the rugby league war. While the end result might be ok the process was far from good for the game.
It might irk you that some Victorian side are there because they are Victorian but their supporters are just as passionate about their clubs as anyone else. To get rid of these sides just because they are Victorian clubs would mean a lot of disenfranchised supporters who would be potentially lost to the game.

Except it's funny how the passionate supporters in the traditional Australian Rules state of Tasmania have been overlooked and instead the AFL has decided to put a new franchise into Western Sydney. No prizes for guessing what motivated that decision.
And it isn't just a matter of "getting rid of clubs just because they are Victorian", it is simply not commercially viable to have so many teams in Melbourne. Hence clubs like North Melbourne and Footscray (I will call them "The Western Bulldogs" when they move to Perth) are on continual AFL life support.
I feel disenfranchised because my club is no longer in a top-tier competition, a fact about which AFL would not be overly concerned.

I was referencing the previous post who said "some of the Victorian sides are still there simply because they are Victorian". Is it commercially viable to put a side in Tassie?

More so than having so many teams in Victoria.