Ten And Seven Win AFL Rights - Hooray

[Charlie]

Originally posted by goswannie14
What...premierships???

I know what you are saying, but don't entirely agree/disagree with you.

You could possibly make that argument for Brisbane, but not Sydney. Even then, there was only one player that Brisbane acquired via the merger who played in the premierships (Chris Johnson).

You cannot possibly predict now what would have happened with South Melbourne if the resources had been there to keep them afloat. Yes, you'll note that I said 'if' - I'm not arguing that in 1981 the VFL had the ability to support financially crippled clubs. So the move to Sydney was the right thing to do. However, the modern AFL does have the ability to prevent another club having to move. It had the ability to keep Fitzroy alive, but it usurped its authority to destroy a foundation club.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by Charlie
You could possibly make that argument for Brisbane, but not Sydney. Even then, there was only one player that Brisbane acquired via the merger who played in the premierships (Chris Johnson).

Jarrod Molloy was acquired via the merger and played in the 2002 Grand Final.

[THERBS]

But if South hadn't come to Sydney then I wouldn't be watching AFL or going to games or celebrating a flag. And that makes me sad just thinking about it. Some people have lost out and I feel for them. I would hate to see Sydney die as it almost did over 10 years ago. That would be the end of AFL for me. I couldn't really see myself following another club. So I imagine most other fans of all the other clubs would feel the same. Two divisions wouldn't work. We just don't have the numbers or cash for it to succeed.
AFL at the moment outstrips its major club-level competitor, the NRL, in all ways - administration, junior development, media, finals structure, day Grand Finals, broadcast rights and truly national exposure. Its in strong shape, supports the existing clubs and there's no reason to fear for its direction.

[SimonH]

Originally posted by Charlie
No, it isn't. You're imagining one.

[oh, my freaking god... I've created a monster...]

They harnessed the tradition and kept our history alive.

Others may have the time to keep this going forever, but I don't. Four closing comments by way of summary:

1. I was right in saying that this needs its own forum, let alone being tacked on a Channel 7/10 thread.

2. You wrongly believe that I have said/believe that Australian rules should be run on economic rationalist lines, and as a consequence would have put Sydney down like a hapless water buffalo in 1993. That's not the case. The reason why I would have supported the retention of Sydney, to put it in a phrase, was that it was in the long-term interests of the game that a top-level-comp team continue to exist in NSW. Nor is it the case that I ever proposed a league in which North Melbourne were booted out to be replaced with Balmain. The policy position I come from is that all teams around Australia (that anyone has any interest in) should continue to exist and participate at a level that is appropriate to their resources and following (while still being encouraged to develop same to a higher level). I also believe that the fact that something called 'the AFL' was created by unilateral declaration of one state's football commission in the late 1980s, did not of itself make a national competition. Nor did the farming out of a few new club licenses from which a corporate team was invented from thin air (while some people are passionate Weagles, Clones etc fans and I respect that). Making a national competition is a work in progress. The difference between us is that I believe that it is desirable (and in the very long term, inevitable) that we have a truly national competition, and the only interesting debate is on the form it should take; you (without being disrespectful) adopt one (or a combination) of the following positions:
? I don't care about that
? Even if it might be theoretically desirable, the loss of any existing AFL-Victorian team from the top-level comp would be too high a price to pay
? What we have now is near enough.

3. You (predictably, and I don't say that as a put-down-- I'd probably do the same if arguing your corner) say 'you think my position is contradictory because I'm rootin' for the retention of Victorian teams and don't care about interstate ones-- it's actually you who's contradictory because you want to destroy Victorian clubs while boosting interstate ones beyond their credentials'. Implicit in this whole 'it's you who's biased; no, it's you who's biased' argument is that there is a point of equilibrium where all interested clubs and state football organisations in Australia have a fair involvement in the national game and a fair stake in its future. Not many people would argue that that's a desirable outcome. The difference between us is that you think we're already either at that point, or close to it (or would be if the AFL Commission would cede more power back to the 16 clubs). I think we're far from it, and the top-level Australian Rules comp is heavily Victorian-centric; and that Victorian-centricity negatively affects involvement in, and promotion and development of, Aussie Rules as a national game.

4. As is obvious from the comments above, I don't agree with all aspects of the way in which the English domestic soccer competition is run. For example, private ownership and lack of any salary/financial restrictions tend to hurt the game in the long term. I hope it was reasonably clear from my earlier comments that aspects of the UK system would need to be re-imagined for Australian conditions. The point about the promotion/relegation model (and I hope no-one would dispute there are many models for running the game: it's not just 'adopt UK soccer in toto, or keep what we have forever'), is that 'should this club go out of business, or should this club survive by the skin of its teeth?' is in most cases a false dichotomy. If there are people interested in running it, and young people interested in playing for it, of course the club should survive. The real issue is the level at which the club should operate. See, for example, the Newtown Jets. All Jet-lovers would be disappointed that they aren't playing in the highest comp in the land, and would fondly remember the days when they were one of Australia's leading league teams. But changing demographics (and no doubt other factors) meant that by the early 80s, the club was no longer financially viable at the top level. (In a familiar story, if it had survived in the then-NSWRL it would have been by relocating to the growing market of Campbelltown, but the attempt fell through.) All Jet-lovers would also agree that it is great that the club continues to exist, "keeping its history alive" as you say, and continues to field a number of teams, the highest of them in NSW's premier state comp. A system which perpetuates and encourages a mammoth drop-off between the top-level and second-tier of the competition is bad for the game, because it discourages grass roots involvement, and promotes the false dichotomy that I've referred to above-- 'if we're not playing in the AFL, we might as well go out of business'.

I would be delighted to continue the discussion with Charlie (or anyone else) by PM, but as these arguments will continue to be held forever, I don't see the virtue in inflicting them on everyone else indefinitely.

As this'll be my last post on the topic, I apologise in advance that you will inevitably feel that I've misrepresented your arguments. I have no doubt about the passion or genuineness of your beliefs. As Ali G would say, Respeck.

[Sanecow]

I think I hear wedding bells.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Sanecow
I think I hear wedding bells.

Always the bridesmoo...

[Charlie]

You think you're getting the last word? Ha!

Originally posted by SimonH


2. You wrongly believe that I have said/believe that Australian rules should be run on economic rationalist lines, and as a consequence would have put Sydney down like a hapless water buffalo in 1993. That's not the case. The reason why I would have supported the retention of Sydney, to put it in a phrase, was that it was in the long-term interests of the game that a top-level-comp team continue to exist in NSW.

Yet you think it is in the best interests of the game that the sport's heartland (and you cannot ever deny that Victoria is the centre of the Australian rules world) be alienated from the same top level? For that is the effect of what you endorse.

Every time you deem a Victorian club expendable - in light of comments I will quote later I think of this as punishing them for having the gall to launch the national competition - you alienate their fans. Hundreds of thousands of people in every single case. Yes, some will continue to follow them (moreso if they are relocated than merged) but as many or more will drop the sport altogether. It is not a good strategy to pillage your home city in order to take another one - regardless of the spoils on offer.

Nor is it the case that I ever proposed a league in which North Melbourne were booted out to be replaced with Balmain. The policy position I come from is that all teams around Australia (that anyone has any interest in) should continue to exist and participate at a level that is appropriate to their resources and following (while still being encouraged to develop same to a higher level).

You endorsed a multi-division structure in which clubs like Balmain deserve to compete in an expanded national competition. You further argued that this is not an inherent right of the clubs that created the national competition. Either this is an appalling conflict, or you are placing the interests of Balmain ahead of the Kangaroos.

I also believe that the fact that something called 'the AFL' was created by unilateral declaration of one state's football commission in the late 1980s, did not of itself make a national competition. Nor did the farming out of a few new club licenses from which a corporate team was invented from thin air (while some people are passionate Weagles, Clones etc fans and I respect that). Making a national competition is a work in progress. The difference between us is that I believe that it is desirable (and in the very long term, inevitable) that we have a truly national competition, and the only interesting debate is on the form it should take; you (without being disrespectful) adopt one (or a combination) of the following positions:
? I don't care about that
? Even if it might be theoretically desirable, the loss of any existing AFL-Victorian team from the top-level comp would be too high a price to pay
? What we have now is near enough.

This is yet another absurdity. Western Australian football was so financially moribund in the 1980s that the government stepped in to administer it! They were in no position to act as equal partners in a very, very risky idea.

South Australia's situation was different, yet had the same result. That state has always had a fiercely independent football culture - it was only when Port Adelaide went within an inch of joining the AFL in 1990 that the Adelaide Crows were belatedly formed by the other eight SANFL clubs. If WA didn't have the resources, SA didn't have the disposition.

So who was to start this national competition, if not the VFL? Not Tasmania! Certainly no economic powerhouse, the VFL was nonetheless the strongest league both financially and in quality. Of the football cities, ONLY Melbourne has the market for more than a handful of clubs - two is ideal, three is the maximum that either Perth or Adelaide can serve. It had even made the first foray interstate in 1981. The VFL was the natural vehicle for expansion.

Yet you seem to think that the clubs that MADE the national competition possible should now be punished for it. Oh, I know there is no punitive intent, but this is the effect, as you must surely acknowledge. That the Kangaroos - whose leadership under Allen Aylett, Ron Joseph and Ron Barassi had dragged football into the professional era in the 1970 - should now face extinction for bequething to the sport financial security is a particularly odious viewpoint.

3. You (predictably, and I don't say that as a put-down-- I'd probably do the same if arguing your corner) say 'you think my position is contradictory because I'm rootin' for the retention of Victorian teams and don't care about interstate ones-- it's actually you who's contradictory because you want to destroy Victorian clubs while boosting interstate ones beyond their credentials'. Implicit in this whole 'it's you who's biased; no, it's you who's biased' argument is that there is a point of equilibrium where all interested clubs and state football organisations in Australia have a fair involvement in the national game and a fair stake in its future. Not many people would argue that that's a desirable outcome. The difference between us is that you think we're already either at that point, or close to it (or would be if the AFL Commission would cede more power back to the 16 clubs). I think we're far from it, and the top-level Australian Rules comp is heavily Victorian-centric; and that Victorian-centricity negatively affects involvement in, and promotion and development of, Aussie Rules as a national game.

The sport is Victoria-centric, Simon. That's not going to change in the forseeable future. No matter HOW strong a patron you are for football in NSW, Sydney is no more than the golden shore on the horizon. Victoria is the sport's home. Victoria is the sport's Fort Knox - a nest egg secure against all but careless squandering.

You seem to think that the clubs are mere brands for the promotion of the competition - nonsense! Each of the clubs is a separate entity, and the competition itself is the vehicle for the clubs, not the other way around! This is the case in ALL competitions except one - the biggest and most important.

I agree wholeheartedly that there must be an equilibrium where all parties with a stake in footy get their fair share. But the 16 AFL clubs - who bring in the money - must have their status confirmed, not withdrawn! You do not appear to understand that as great a loss as it is to the sport when Zillmere is forced into hiatus, it pales into insignificance compared to the death (or even wounding) of one of its cash cows.

Yes, it's a lovely vision where West Perth plays Belconnen in the 2nd Division Grand Final, with the winner earning their place in the top flight. Merit based competition to its core. But it's so unrealistic it doesn't deserve a second thought.

4. As is obvious from the comments above, I don't agree with all aspects of the way in which the English domestic soccer competition is run. For example, private ownership and lack of any salary/financial restrictions tend to hurt the game in the long term. I hope it was reasonably clear from my earlier comments that aspects of the UK system would need to be re-imagined for Australian conditions.

You said:

The point aboutI appreciate that a divisional system would require extensive change to the structure of the game (e.g. clubs in the UK must run internal reserve teams; the draft would need to be reimagined; the salary cap issue would need to be revisited).

That's as clear a recognition as I could imagine that you do not foresee the survival of our sport's (necessary) equilisation measures with a UK-style promotion and relegation system. It is ONLY the draft and salary cap that allows as many as 16 reasonably competitive top-flight teams to function in Australian rules football, which is a small sport and small market in world terms. England has several times as many soccer fans and players as we have Aussie rules fans and players, and yet without equalisation they have four teams that share the title between them.

In Australia, a free-market (I despise that oxymoron 'economic rationalist') system will see Collingwood, Essendon, West Coast and Adelaide dominant. Sydney and Carlton *might* manage to catch up with time. Is that what you really want?

the promotion/relegation model (and I hope no-one would dispute there are many models for running the game: it's not just 'adopt UK soccer in toto, or keep what we have forever'), is that 'should this club go out of business, or should this club survive by the skin of its teeth?' is in most cases a false dichotomy. If there are people interested in running it, and young people interested in playing for it, of course the club should survive. The real issue is the level at which the club should operate. See, for example, the Newtown Jets. All Jet-lovers would be disappointed that they aren't playing in the highest comp in the land, and would fondly remember the days when they were one of Australia's leading league teams. But changing demographics (and no doubt other factors) meant that by the early 80s, the club was no longer financially viable at the top level. (In a familiar story, if it had survived in the then-NSWRL it would have been by relocating to the growing market of Campbelltown, but the attempt fell through.) All Jet-lovers would also agree that it is great that the club continues to exist, "keeping its history alive" as you say, and continues to field a number of teams, the highest of them in NSW's premier state comp.

How many people turn up to Newtown games these days? My guess would be about as many as turn up to watch the Fitzroy Reds going around in the VAFA. They play at Brunswick Street, they wear the old jumper and they are operated by the Fitzroy Football Club. But except for a few die-hards - and good for them - they are ignored by the vast majority of old Roys fans. They've either accepted the on-paper 'merger', switched to another club or abandoned the sport altogether. That is not good for the game.

A system which perpetuates and encourages a mammoth drop-off between the top-level and second-tier of the competition is bad for the game, because it discourages grass roots involvement, and promotes the false dichotomy that I've referred to above-- 'if we're not playing in the AFL, we might as well go out of business'.

That is the way most fans feel. Ask Victorian fans on Bigfooty. They'll tell you.

Like it or not the course of professionalism can no more be turned back than it could have been avoided in the first place. Why punish the clubs that ushered the sport into the modern era?

I would be delighted to continue the discussion with Charlie (or anyone else) by PM, but as these arguments will continue to be held forever, I don't see the virtue in inflicting them on everyone else indefinitely.

Don't be silly. I see no problem with continuing the topic on the public boards. It is certainly preferable to doing so via PM.

As this'll be my last post on the topic, I apologise in advance that you will inevitably feel that I've misrepresented your arguments. I have no doubt about the passion or genuineness of your beliefs. As Ali G would say, Respeck.

I don't see a good reason for this to be your last post.

[Dudley]

Some major movement on this issue the past 24-48 hours

According to 3AW this morning the 7&10 bid is now "on the verge of collapse"

as Foxtel is steadfastly refusing to deal with 7&10

If 7&10 can't do a deal with Foxtel they will then be forced to show all 8 AFL games per week on FTA throughout the entire country (on Friday nights primetime everwhere and competing against each other on Saturdays and Sundays) - ie. logically won't happen and financailly crippling disaster

Foxtel continues to hold out, the original PBL bid will be announced the winner on May 6 after the 120 day AFL negotiation period with 7&10 expires

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by Dudley
Some major movement on this issue the past 24-48 hours

According to 3AW this morning the 7&10 bid is now "on the verge of collapse"

as Foxtel is steadfastly refusing to deal with 7&10

If 7&10 can't do a deal with Foxtel they will then be forced to show all 8 AFL games per week on FTA throughout the entire country (on Friday nights primetime everwhere and competing against each other on Saturdays and Sundays) - ie. logically won't happen and financailly crippling disaster

Foxtel continues to hold out, the original PBL bid will be announced the winner on May 6 after the 120 day AFL negotiation period with 7&10 expires

Has anyone heard anything that can prove or refute this???

[tantrum]

The Age says "the standoff is over".

http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2006/02/14/1139890736291.html

[giant]

No doubt just the latest instalment of "war by media" on part of both parties. This has a long way to go yet I suspect.

[Tuesday]

And she is doing a great job.

[floppinab]

Originally posted by Charlie


Every time you deem a Victorian club expendable - in light of comments I will quote later I think of this as punishing them for having the gall to launch the national competition - you alienate their fans. Hundreds of thousands of people in every single case. Yes, some will continue to follow them (moreso if they are relocated than merged) but as many or more will drop the sport altogether. It is not a good strategy to pillage your home city in order to take another one - regardless of the spoils on offer.

You further argued that this is not an inherent right of the clubs that created the national competition. Either this is an appalling conflict, or you are placing the interests of Balmain ahead of the Kangaroos.



This is yet another absurdity. Western Australian football was so financially moribund in the 1980s that the government stepped in to administer it! They were in no position to act as equal partners in a very, very risky idea.

South Australia's situation was different, yet had the same result. That state has always had a fiercely independent football culture - it was only when Port Adelaide went within an inch of joining the AFL in 1990 that the Adelaide Crows were belatedly formed by the other eight SANFL clubs. If WA didn't have the resources, SA didn't have the disposition.

So who was to start this national competition, if not the VFL? Not Tasmania! Certainly no economic powerhouse, the VFL was nonetheless the strongest league both financially and in quality. Of the football cities, ONLY Melbourne has the market for more than a handful of clubs - two is ideal, three is the maximum that either Perth or Adelaide can serve. It had even made the first foray interstate in 1981. The VFL was the natural vehicle for expansion.

Yet you seem to think that the clubs that MADE the national competition possible should now be punished for it. Oh, I know there is no punitive intent, but this is the effect, as you must surely acknowledge. That the Kangaroos - whose leadership under Allen Aylett, Ron Joseph and Ron Barassi had dragged football into the professional era in the 1970 - should now face extinction for bequething to the sport financial security is a particularly odious viewpoint.

Yes those wonderful, professional Victorian clubs were the natural vehicle for expansion were they.
In the '70s and further back there was a reasonably representative body called the NFL who administrated football around the country, tried to standarise rules, organise interstate matches, Champions of Aust. matches and the like. They even had delegates from the non-trad. Aussie Rules states. On several occasions during the late '70s and early eighties several proposals for a national league were brought to the NFL, mostly by the SANFL and were consistantly voted down by the VFL. Of course the VFL had it's own expansionist agenda that involved not only raping the playing talent of the western states as had been ongoing for some time, but to suck some of cash out of those states as well, initally as
"licence fees" for new entry clubs but eventually from broadcast rights as well. Just a one of the tactics it used was to force a reduction of transfer fees through the NFL by bullying non-traditional states to vote with the VFL. This in conjunction with attempts to match sky-rocketing offers to players in order to keep them in Perth were key factors in resulting of the financial bind the WAFL found itself in. The VFL wasn't that far behind financially either the main difference being their scale allowing them to continue to trade out the difficulties they and their clubs regularly found themselves in.
SO, instead of having a reasonably fair and equitable national competition we now have an expanded VFL and supporters thereof demanding a right for Victorian clubs to remain, regardless of the fact that their actions locked out a number of clubs in Perth and Adelaide, some having far greater traditions than those in the VFL, from particpating in a national league, thereby locking them out of revenue streams available at that level and a chance to ever compete at that level. The height of hypocracy.

Originally posted by Charlie



Like it or not the course of professionalism can no more be turned back than it could have been avoided in the first place. Why punish the clubs that ushered the sport into the modern era?

Because they had the opportunity to do it in a reasonably equitable fashion but got greedy and had to do it their way at the considerable expense of the WAFL and SANFL. They've made their professional beds, now they have to lie in them.