Should the league expand to 18 teams?

[The Peanut]

more than 500 views but only 50 votes. perhaps i have underestimated the depth of feeling on this issue.

the "no to 18 teams" vote is now down to 80 per cent.

Well done with the Poll and I must admit that I am one of the people who have viewed and haven't voted because I haven't made up my mind - I want to know what sort of deal the AFL are offering the clubs first. The official AFL letters were only sent to clubs at the end of last week, I believe.

I agree with those who have concerns for the reasons mentioned but also realise the AFL should at least 'look' at expanding as other codes are breathing down our necks (especially soccer).

Nevertheless, the more vulnerable clubs such as ours should proceed with the utmost of caution - it's all very well for the well-healed clubs to put their hands up, they have little to lose, if anything.

[bigcarl]

I agree with those who have concerns for the reasons mentioned but also realise the AFL should at least 'look' at expanding as other codes are breathing down our necks (especially soccer).

I applaud the league wanting to expand into new territory. i just don't agree that adding new clubs is the way to do it.

ideally a smart club that cannot pay its bills and survive in the over-crowded melbourne market place (such as the kangaroos) sees the writing on the way and moves to an area where it can survive (such as the gold coast).

had they taken the gold coast deal their financial future would have been guaranteed by the league and they would have been looked after as far as player concessions and in other ways as well.

but they decided to fight on alone in melbourne despite crippling debt and a tiny supporter base. i admire their courage, but i don't like their long-term chances of survival.

imo if you can't pay you can't play ... and that goes for us, too, if we're ever in the same position in future.

if it comes to a choice between relocating and living or staying and dying, I'd choose living every time. to me that is the choice the kangaroos were faced with

[saintsRrising]

A few thoughts...if one leaves our passion for the saints aside:

For the long term growth (ie think 30 years+ time) and health of Aussie Rules the AFL competition needs a national footprint.....and more evenly than it currently has.


This can only really be achieved by two scenarios, or a combination of the two.

1/ Keep the current number of teams. This means that at least several of of the current Melbourne teams must relocate interestate.
* this could include models where clubs play a significant number of games interestate as well as in Melbourne (ie as with the Tassie Hawks)


2/ Expand the number of teams with the new teams in a new area. However with this at the level of 18 teams there is still too many teams in Melbourne even with the current population predications now predicting that Melbourne will become Australia's largest city.





The current imbalance is propped up artificially by TV money. At some time in the future this propping up will be removed or substantially altered.


Now that is the logical view.

Emotionally I am as NIMBI as anyone and living in Melbourne I hope the Saints are not the wone to relocate.

But push is going to come to shove for some Melbourne Clubs....sooner or later......unless the AFL becomes a much larger competition.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Where do I vote for "eventually"?:)

Successful expansion and marketing of the game into the two markets (QLD, NSW) under discussion could reap HUGE dividends if done successfully. In theory, I see no reason why Sydney/NSW shouldn't be able to support more than 2 teams, and QLD should be able to support 2 easily as well.

In theory.

The bugbear is Rugby, and the problem is care factor in those states - it's not like either is chomping at the bit for another team right now... the rub on the Roos is that the AFL would rather subsidise a team in an expansion market than in a static and failing one (and I sincerely hope that Roos fans step up and make me eat those words). Barring that move, should the AFL be jumping in holus bolus into Gold Coast and/or Sydney?

I see the desired outcome, I just don't see the path to be travelled if the Roos don't get on board with the AFL's plan. Expansion to 18? Figure out how to look after the 16 we've got first - even if that means relocating and making tough choices about how.

/$.02

[riccardo]

The bugbear is Rugby,

You've hit the nail on the head there.

The AFL barely cared at all about the Gold Coast until the Titans moved in, now you've got the Basketball (Rollers) and an A-League Team (Galaxy) who start in 2009/10, the AFL is in danger of being left behind in a massive growth area.

It is a similar situation in West Sydney, there is alot of growth in that area.

The AFL lost thier chance on the Gold Coast, if they had come into it even 3 years ago before the Titanand Rollers it may have been OK, but a new AFL team will be lost in the shuffle now.

[bigcarl]

the "no-to-18 teams" vote is running at 78 per cent.

more than 700 views but only a piddling 58 votes so far.

[plugger66]

the "no-to-18 teams" vote is running at 78 per cent.

more than 700 views but only a piddling 58 votes so far.

This would be because everytime someone writes something we look. I would bet you have looked at least 10 times.

[bigcarl]

77 per cent say no to 18 teams in this (admittedly small) poll. i'm still going with the majority.

like the board of every other club ours has rolled over and disregarded what i believe is a strong aversion to the idea of 18 teams among a majority of fans.

so be it.

i don't like it but i can live with it.

there is actually something to be said for a 20-team competition and two divisions.

this would solve many of the problems regarding the existing hopelessly compromised draw as each club would play each other twice in a 20-match home and away round.

the winner of each division would then play off for the premiership.

it might work okay but to my mind 18 or 20 clubs kind of waters down even more a club's importance and chances of tasting ultimate glory. it used to feel special belonging to a club, but in the 2000s we're just one of many.

with a bit of luck we'll end up in division one and carlton, collingwood and essendon will be consigned to division two.

[hilairehinshelwood]

I'm in favour of expansion, although i think the new clubs should be located where there is an interest in Afl instead of being foisted on where there is no interest.
We all know about Tasmania's campaign for a team, and i think their population will grow. i think Fremantle despite a new and very unsuccessful side, draw larger crowds and have a bigger membership than most afl clubs. So i think Perth could support a third side.
Only once Brisbane and Sydney regularly sell out their games, in a way fremantle do in times of on field failure, will we then know there is the level of interest in those areas to add teams.

As for relocating Melbourne teams, the Kangaroos were right to stay. Moving 1000s of kilometres away means you are a different club. If the saints moved to the gold coast i wouldn't be stupid to believe for a moment, that just because StKFC is hidden away on the collar it would still be st kilda, the team would be a new team. Better to die fighting than surrender and be killed off.

Also if a few Melbourne teams relocate say melbourne, kangas, hawthorn bulldogs(st kilda in size are in that group) that would cut down on the number of games you can see in Melbourne. i think 22 games is not enough, and to cut the 16 or 17 games in melbourne then we wipe away a quarter to a fifth of the melbourne games. Another good reason for the kangaroos to stay, unfortunately lumbered with the gold coast for this years kangas clash.

If the kangas did go who would have been sent packing next, to leave a spot vacant for western sydney. Saints were the only side to make a loss i think last year!
So good on the Kangas for fighting and making the AFL look towards expansion and adding teams instead of killing teams off to make way.

So voting to keep the league to 16 is like a turkey voting for christmas, it will keep alive the chance of st kilda to be killed off to make room. Why not let the league expand in size in line with Australia's population growth.

[bigcarl]

down to 74 per cent against 18 teams ... and falling

[riccardo]

well, looks like its on now, regardless of what the fans want.

I mean, who are we, we just support the game physically and financially, we are nothing now in light of the big business the game has become.

[bigcarl]

well, looks like its on now, regardless of what the fans want.

I mean, who are we, we just support the game physically and financially, we are nothing now in light of the big business the game has become.

yep, no stopping it now. roll on 20 teams and two divisions

[bigcarl]

approximately three quarters of people who responded are against 18 teams

[bigcarl]

exactly three quarters of people who responded are against 18 teams

[matrix]

i think its an important topic bigcarl.

it should be 16 teams and everyone plays each other twice, once home and once away.
thats right, 32 rounds of footy, get rid of the pre-season cup, extend the season by a month or so, have a break in the middle still, and increase the interchange to 6 players (even 7 maybe).
that way collingwood wont get 18 of 22 games at the f****** G every year

18 teams???......sheshhh. obviously a money spinner, but wouldnt doing what i said above increase revenue anyway????

we discuss this at work quite a bit and everyone tells me that 32 rounds of footy is too taxing on the players, which is why i say increase the interchange.
And dont the players train for 40 odd weeks of the year anyway??
you could even increase the playing lists in the event of getting more injuries due to more games played.
just a thought...............