SA Footy

THE health of Victorian football has been heavily debated, consistent with financial problems of some clubs and the stunning success of interstate rivals.

No Victorian team has featured in the past three Grand Finals, and eight of the past 10 premierships have been won by one of the interstate powerhouses.

Victoria's footy fans would have been buoyed by AFL Commission chairman Mike Fitzpatrick's weekend comments that there were many problems holding back Victorian clubs, and they were being addressed by the league's executive.

Fitzpatrick told the Herald Sun that despite the success of interstate clubs, the AFL's heartland was Victoria.

"We're not going to survive as a competition if we don't look after the heartland and, in the end, Melbourne is the heartland, Victorian football is the heartland," the former Carlton great said.

Interstate clubs and their fans will no doubt bleat if Victorian clubs are given extra AFL resources to compete on a more level playing field of resources and facilities.

But they should remember that the success of the AFL, with its national appeal and huge television revenues, was built on a base that has its roots firmly in Victorian football.


http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ ... 18,00.html

Barto wrote:THE health of Victorian football has been heavily debated, consistent with financial problems of some clubs and the stunning success of interstate rivals.

No Victorian team has featured in the past three Grand Finals, and eight of the past 10 premierships have been won by one of the interstate powerhouses.

Victoria's footy fans would have been buoyed by AFL Commission chairman Mike Fitzpatrick's weekend comments that there were many problems holding back Victorian clubs, and they were being addressed by the league's executive.

Fitzpatrick told the Herald Sun that despite the success of interstate clubs, the AFL's heartland was Victoria.

"We're not going to survive as a competition if we don't look after the heartland and, in the end, Melbourne is the heartland, Victorian football is the heartland," the former Carlton great said.

Interstate clubs and their fans will no doubt bleat if Victorian clubs are given extra AFL resources to compete on a more level playing field of resources and facilities.

But they should remember that the success of the AFL, with its national appeal and huge television revenues, was built on a base that has its roots firmly in Victorian football.


http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ ... 18,00.html

Hehe. They just don't get it. So much parochial bullshit and they don't understand that in trying to extend the life of all VFL clubs they have doomed Victorian teams to mediocrity.

Every year there is another all interstate GF I have a silent chuckle at the stupidity of the Victorian administrators. The irony is if a level playing field was allowed to be introduced like the SANFL wanted before being bulldozed into forming the Crows there would not be the interstate domination that we are now witnessing. What a beautiful irony

Barto wrote:THE health of Victorian football has been heavily debated, consistent with financial problems of some clubs and the stunning success of interstate rivals.

No Victorian team has featured in the past three Grand Finals, and eight of the past 10 premierships have been won by one of the interstate powerhouses.

Victoria's footy fans would have been buoyed by AFL Commission chairman Mike Fitzpatrick's weekend comments that there were many problems holding back Victorian clubs, and they were being addressed by the league's executive.

Fitzpatrick told the Herald Sun that despite the success of interstate clubs, the AFL's heartland was Victoria.

"We're not going to survive as a competition if we don't look after the heartland and, in the end, Melbourne is the heartland, Victorian football is the heartland," the former Carlton great said.

Interstate clubs and their fans will no doubt bleat if Victorian clubs are given extra AFL resources to compete on a more level playing field of resources and facilities.

But they should remember that the success of the AFL, with its national appeal and huge television revenues, was built on a base that has its roots firmly in Victorian football.


http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ ... 18,00.html

It is certainly time for the Vics to move on - me thinks !!!

nothing incorrect in that article

If they really believe that they should go re-instate Fitzroy.

They didn't realise placing only 2 teams in WA and SA and 1 in NSW and Qld gave teams in those markets a big advantage in terms of supporters, resources & access to sponsors, etc; over the 10 teams scrapping around in one city (11 when the AFL started).

The Victorian Football community thought they could have their cake (keep existing VFL intact) and eat it too (tack on interstate teams and take the revenue), despite the fact that those interstate teams had a huge negative impact on those states' local comps.

Relocate 2 teams - ideally 4 but that won't happen.

No sympathy from me

Dutchy wrote:nothing incorrect in that article

I agree.

Barto wrote:But they should remember that the success of the AFL, with its national appeal and huge television revenues, was built on a base that has its roots firmly in Victorian football. [/i]

A lot of the 'national appeal' (the % that relates to WA and SA) has been a straight conversion of support from local comps to the AFL. ie, they have got a lot of new sponsors and support at the expense of the SANFL, TFL and WAFL.

Just because the old VFL has more clubs represented in the AFL than the other states does not mean they can claim any more of the 'roots' than the other football states. That's ridiculous.

The AFL should have put some performance criteria on the VFL teams at the time and and then limited the number of teams that could enter the AFL to a sustainable number and left the rest in the VFL, rather than all teams automatically getting a gig - then the VFL supporters might have known what it's like when your 'heartland' is scorched.

There's probably a lot of holes in that theory I know .... but this presumption that every single VFL team had a right to play in the AFL was one of the wobbly legs of the AFL table when it was set up. Now it comes home to roost.

Besides, it's a moot point. The AFL are already financially supporting some of the Melbourne teams with assistance grants of up to $4m I think ... Carlton and the Bulldogs received grants last year from memory.

Havings said all that, I think it undermines a comp to f**k with the history as the back-lash can have more of a financial impact than the cost of supporting struggling clubs from time to time. So now that we are where we are, I wouldn't support another Fitzroy debacle and would only re-locate teams with a lot of care.

its about time someone in vic started to look at the bigger picture.VICTORIA cannot support 10 clubs with the amount of money that is required to get an afl team on the park these days.for mine the victorian teams are starting to ressemble the english county cricket system to many teams not enough money to make them all competive and successfull !get rid of a few and spread the dollar further .i am not saying who to get rid of in fear of being lynched

Sojourner wrote:If they really believe that they should go re-instate Fitzroy.

Wasting your bait mate,Phil's gone.

Not trying to bait Phil at all! Rather I found recent comments in here on Fitzroy interesting and it logically follows that if the author actually believes what he wrote, then he should advocate the reintroduction of the Fitzroy club to the AFL.

Onto the current subject I have had a change of heart with this whole issue. I have thought in the past that relocating Melbourne based sides to Tassie and the Gold Coast and even later on NT would solve the problem. Yet my thoughts now is that any sides that come from those areas need to be set up like the Crows, based on and integrated into the local footy competitions. Why bother relocating an unsuccessful side and trying to convince the local population that this is their side, it clearly will not work.

The way forward is to increase by two the number of sides in the AFL to include Tasmania and Southport and let them follow in the way of the Crows and the Eagles.

Everyone knows that there are too many clubs based in Melbourne, yet considering I support Geelong and the Crows as my second side, both have home ground advantage at Football Park and Kardina Park which gives us a natural advantage to getting 12 wins a year to qualify for the finals. Sides in Melbourne have traded away their home ground advantage and their loss is our definate gain.

The other problem is resources, the most $$$ goes to successfull sides with the largest amount of TV exposure - Crows and Eagles which helps keep them on top. The Crows are sponsored by Victorias largest car manufacturer which helps vic $$$ flood into S.A which is no doubt appreciated by the Crows managment. Sides in Vic are struggling to get sponsorship, Western Bulldogs went 6 weeks without a major sponsor, such is the struggle for a bottom club to get corporate funding.

So leave it as it is, a Gold Coast side will have no shortage of sponsors and the Tassie Goverment are underwriting their AFL licence. The two sides will go it alone successfully and build up the same home ground advantage which should see them have a shot at the finals ahead of several existing ex VFL clubs.

Sojourner wrote:Not trying to bait Phil at all! Rather I found recent comments in here on Fitzroy interesting and it logically follows that if the author actually believes what he wrote, then he should advocate the reintroduction of the Fitzroy club to the AFL.

Onto the current subject I have had a change of heart with this whole issue. I have thought in the past that relocating Melbourne based sides to Tassie and the Gold Coast and even later on NT would solve the problem. Yet my thoughts now is that any sides that come from those areas need to be set up like the Crows, based on and integrated into the local footy competitions. Why bother relocating an unsuccessful side and trying to convince the local population that this is their side, it clearly will not work.

The way forward is to increase by two the number of sides in the AFL to include Tasmania and Southport and let them follow in the way of the Crows and the Eagles.

Everyone knows that there are too many clubs based in Melbourne, yet considering I support Geelong and the Crows as my second side, both have home ground advantage at Football Park and Kardina Park which gives us a natural advantage to getting 12 wins a year to qualify for the finals. Sides in Melbourne have traded away their home ground advantage and their loss is our definate gain.

The other problem is resources, the most $$$ goes to successfull sides with the largest amount of TV exposure - Crows and Eagles which helps keep them on top. The Crows are sponsored by Victorias largest car manufacturer which helps vic $$$ flood into S.A which is no doubt appreciated by the Crows managment. Sides in Vic are struggling to get sponsorship, Western Bulldogs went 6 weeks without a major sponsor, such is the struggle for a bottom club to get corporate funding.

So leave it as it is, a Gold Coast side will have no shortage of sponsors and the Tassie Goverment are underwriting their AFL licence. The two sides will go it alone successfully and build up the same home ground advantage which should see them have a shot at the finals ahead of several existing ex VFL clubs.

But Sydney are a relocated club. I think if the AFL wants to save the Melbourne based clubs and they don't want to move them or merge them the best solution would be to set up a Division 2 AFL with the bottom 4 sides adding extra licences to the Tassies etc with a relegation/promotion system like soccer so that there is incentive for Div 2 sides to improve.

who would sponsor a div 2 team ??
Would they get tv exposure??
How would a div2 side have anychance of paying anywhere near the salary cap?
How would the draft work ?

Div 2 will never happen ...its a logistical nightmare


P.S. not all Melbourne sides traded away their home ground advantges.Hawthorn had a 30yr lease at Waverley to establish itself in the area and had it taken away when the commission sold it from underneath them.Yes they were compensated and have their base there now but were forced to have now "home games" at a nearly neutral MCG

redden whites wrote:who would sponsor a div 2 team ??
Would they get tv exposure??
How would a div2 side have anychance of paying anywhere near the salary cap?
How would the draft work ?

Div 2 will never happen ...its a logistical nightmare


P.S. not all Melbourne sides traded away their home ground advantges.Hawthorn had a 30yr lease at Waverley to establish itself in the area and had it taken away when the commission sold it from underneath them.Yes they were compensated and have their base there now but were forced to have now "home games" at a nearly neutral MCG

OK off the top of my head:

who would sponsor a div 2 team ?? This would be a comp with more sponsor attraction than a SANFL or WAFL so I would expect sponsorship less than AFL but more than SANFL/WAFL.

Would they get tv exposure?? Does the SANFL get TV exposure? - Yes so why not a Div 2?

How would a div2 side have anychance of paying anywhere near the salary cap? There would be a lower salary cap for Div2

How would the draft work ? Dunno, you've got me there. I suppose that Div 1 gets first dibs and then there is a tier 2 draft - more opportunities for those that just miss out. Hey that sounds OK. Hadn't thought of that as an advantage

As a former Victorian, they are all blind sheep over there ... they won't face reality, you can't win with 10 Vic clubs.

Cull two clubs and have a 14 team comp (12 would be better!) and work towards a 26 round H & A season (an even draw with each side meeting home AND away - hence the term 'home and away season').

Victorians will call me a traitor but I actually like to see the SA and WA sides doing well (stuff the northern sides) because it's payback for the past when the Vics pillaged SA and WA clubs and beat them in state games with their own home grown boys.

Benchwarmer wrote:As a former Victorian, they are all blind sheep over there ... they won't face reality, you can't win with 10 Vic clubs.

Cull two clubs and have a 14 team comp (12 would be better!) and work towards a 26 round H & A season (an even draw with each side meeting home AND away - hence the term 'home and away season').

Victorians will call me a traitor but I actually like to see the SA and WA sides doing well (stuff the northern sides) because it's payback for the past when the Vics pillaged SA and WA clubs and beat them in state games with their own home grown boys.

Benchwarmer - you are in my centre square.

... or have a Division 1 from the two SA sides, the two WA sides, Sydney, Brisbane, Geelong and Footscray with the rest in Division 2!!!!!

Benchwarmer wrote:... or have a Division 1 from the two SA sides, the two WA sides, Sydney, Brisbane, Geelong and Footscray with the rest in Division 2!!!!!

OK now....

haha, this is classic....suck shit, they wanted a national comp but didnt realise how it would impact their own league....now they still want to say that melb is the home of it all and want/need help.....well go get fkd....

time to move the GF to sydney for a year or two... make it a true national comp!!!