AFL must stop clubs selling home games
Roar Pro By Rodney Penny, 14 Jun 2012 Rodney Penny is a Roar Pro
Related coverage
- Hawthorn Hawks news
- Melbourne Demons news
- North Melbourne Kangaroos news
- AFL news
- Toyota Premiership news
- GWS Giants news
In this current world of capitalism and chasing the almighty dollar, you’ll find companies and organisations that will do just about anything to make a quick buck.
This is no different for the AFL and its clubs.
And for the most part, it’s a good thing.
Retaining a strong fiscal standpoint is fundamental to any business succeeding, so gaining multi-million dollar sponsorships from large corporations and selling memberships and merchandise to fans is universally acceptable.
Hell, it’s what makes an AFL club tick, right?
One thing I strongly oppose however; is the selling of home games away from the traditional supporter base.
Hawthorn, North Melbourne, GWS, Melbourne and Richmond are all guilty of this.
I believe that it not only alienates the supporters, but it shows certain arrogance and a lack of integrity and dignity.
The fact that clubs are so willing to do this to their supporters while knowing that playing one, two or three games a year in the alternative location will never gain them a significant following in the given region is simply ridiculous and it reeks of tackiness.
Hawthorn has Tasmania as their major sponsor and they play four games a year in Launceston. They make a significant amount of money for this commitment and they have a good following in Tasmania. However, four out of eleven home games away from Melbourne is simply too much.
North Melbourne and Melbourne are cash strapped, GWS are trying to appeal to the broader area west of Sydney (Canberra) and I’m not quite sure why a massive club such as Richmond is playing a game up in Cairns apart from the money factor.
Whatever the reasons are, clubs need to sort out their identity crisis, fixate on their supporter base and not whore games around for financial gain.
GWS have impressed me so far, but it was a big mistake selling games to Canberra. They should play every home game at Skoda Stadium which will go a long way to entrenching them into the psyche of Western Sydney.
I agree that Tasmania and Darwin need AFL games. Maybe that’s where the 19th and 20th teams should be based?
But then again, that’s a story for another time. What do you think, Roarers? Does it make any sense, other than financial, to sell games to different location? Are teams selling out the regions they are supposed to represent?
- Explore:
- AFL, GWS Giants, Hawthorn Hawks, Melbourne Demons, North Melbourne Kangaroos
June 14th 2012 @ 4:50am
Football United said | June 14th 2012 @ 4:50am | Report comment
i find it truly bizzare that they do this. is there any other major league in the world were teams regularly willingly give up home advantage to play elsewhere for cash? All i can think off is the NFL’s venture into Wembley (one off and different teams) and English Super Leagues magic weekend.
June 14th 2012 @ 7:32am
The_Wookie said | June 14th 2012 @ 7:32am | Report comment
Clubs are paid to play rugby league at ANZ, and I believe an NRL club was/is paid to play in Adelaide.I wouldnt be surprised if NRL clubs are paid to play in Perth either.
June 14th 2012 @ 7:49am
MyGeneration said | June 14th 2012 @ 7:49am | Report comment
Could arguably add Wallabies vs All Blacks in Hong Kong. I think MLB games have been played in Japan, too.
June 14th 2012 @ 8:20am
mds1970 said | June 14th 2012 @ 8:20am | Report comment
Souths played Brisbane in Perth earlier this year.
June 14th 2012 @ 9:49am
Cameron said | June 14th 2012 @ 9:49am | Report comment
Sydney Roosters home game in Darwin this year, too.
June 14th 2012 @ 6:38pm
Football United said | June 14th 2012 @ 6:38pm | Report comment
yet anz is at least in sydney and the bledisloe to put it very bluntly was a friendly.
June 14th 2012 @ 7:53am
The Cattery said | June 14th 2012 @ 7:53am | Report comment
Has happened plenty of times in both the NRL and the A-League.
In fact, very recently, the Premier League put forward the proposal that a 39th round be played where 10 games would be played at different venues around the world.
So no – it’s not the least bit bizarre – par for course I would have thought.
June 14th 2012 @ 2:19pm
Nathan of Perth said | June 14th 2012 @ 2:19pm | Report comment
Denver Broncos play a game in London.
June 14th 2012 @ 7:22am
Paul said | June 14th 2012 @ 7:22am | Report comment
You have a problem with financially challenged clubs selling home games? I have a simple solution. Convince all their fans to buy a membership. But as long as some teams struggle to sell, say, 30,000 memberships, they’ll do what they have to to survive.
June 14th 2012 @ 7:30am
The_Wookie said | June 14th 2012 @ 7:30am | Report comment
Cant say I agree here.
This is a way to get AFL matches out of the heatland of Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia, and out of the captial cities in Sydney, and Brisbane. It has the added advantage of removing some of the massive AFL presence out of Victoria.
If clubs didnt sell games – and they only can because Governments and stadiums are willing to pay for an AFL club, and its worth noting in Sydney even NRL clubs are paid to play at ANZ (and I think another club gets or used to get money to play in Adelaide) – then its unlikely that Darwin, Cairns, Launceston, Hobart, Canberra or Gold Coast would have seen much in the wayh of AFL footy. While the Gold Coast and Canberra are now somewhat better looked after – GWS are being paid millions to play in Canberra, as much as Hawthorn are to play in Tasmania.
Tasmania, The Terriotry and Canberra are unlikely to be able to economically support an AFL team, and the growth potential for league and club revenues outside of the match payments/sponsorship is too small to send a team permanently depending on who you listen to.
With St Kilda now looking to sell games to New Zealand, and Norths Ballarat home denied, and the Bulldogs badly needing the money from Darwin, none of these things will change soon.
Its how you do expansion without really expanding.
June 14th 2012 @ 3:12pm
Rodney Penny said | June 14th 2012 @ 3:12pm | Report comment
I don’t have an issue with clubs playing away from home. However, they should only do it in the pre-season.
Games in Darwin only draw 7-8000 people per match and likewise in Cairns.
I like how NAB Cup and other pre-season games are played all over the country. It gives people from those areas a chance to see top flight football and have a night out. I just don’t think it’s viable for Richmond to play up in Cairns for example. Cairns may be one of the biggest AFL cities in Queensland, but what makes you or anyone else think that a club based a few hundred metres away from the Melbourne Cricket Ground would gain a huge following in a place some 3,000km’s away?
Richmond are a massive club. They drew 44,000 people to a Fremantle game in pouring rain and have over 50,000 members. There’s no need for them to sell a game. It’s worth playing that home game in Melbourne, because Richmond supporters are the most loyal, passionate fans of any team on the planet. Hell, two finals appearances in 20 years and no premiership wins in over 30 and look at the support they receive. It’s simply extraordinary.
Hawthorn is a different story. They have an agreement and clearly the people of Tasmania support them. I still think that playing over a third of your home games away from home is a bit excessive though.
But clubs like Richmond, North and Melbourne should have a bit of a re-think. In my opinion there’s no need for it.
June 14th 2012 @ 7:56am
The Cattery said | June 14th 2012 @ 7:56am | Report comment
Pretty much agree with Wookie – I can’t see the issue to be honest.
With the clubs that sell home games, the fans have options to either buy reduced memberships and/or get in to away games played in Melbourne (which ticketed affairs).
The only gripe one could have is that Hawthorn, a relatively well off club, got in the act to now make them a financial powerhouse, when other clubs are in more need of the extra money.
June 14th 2012 @ 10:12am
Australian Rules said | June 14th 2012 @ 10:12am | Report comment
Cat, no other club actually made the committment that Hawthorn did. The Roos will go anywhere for cash (except GC), the Bulldogs had no real connection to Canberra and Port trudge up to Darwin every so often at the behest of the AFL.
The Hawks are different – they actually put pen to paper and entered a bonafide partnership with Tasmania, in a way that no other club in Australia ever has. And yes, that includes no less than 4 home games. After years spent working on the Apple Isle, more than 8,000 Tasmanians are paid-up Hawthorn members.
The Hawks deserve every extra cent they get from their Tassie committment.
June 14th 2012 @ 11:34am
The Cattery said | June 14th 2012 @ 11:34am | Report comment
I’m not having a go at Hawthorn, they put in the effort, formed the partnership, and it has worked a treat for everyone.
But if I were on the AFL Commission, I’d be thinking: geez, a couple of struggling Melbourne clubs could have used that cash ahead of Hawthorn (thinking North and the dogs).
Hopefully North can make something of the Hobart thing.
As for Ballarat, I can’t help thinking that the Western Bulldogs are actually a better fit for playing two or three there, already having the objective of building up their supporter base out West, down the Western Highway to Melton – may as well keep going to Ballarat.
June 14th 2012 @ 12:15pm
Australian Rules said | June 14th 2012 @ 12:15pm | Report comment
I said in a previous post that the Roos going to Hobart has reinforced the north-south divide in Tassie and guaranteed they won’t ever get their own team. The Roos are there purely for the cash. Only months prior to signing in Hobart they were trying to make Ballarat their “second home”.
I doubt you could do it now, but the geography and cluture of North and the Bulldogs would have made a natural pairing years ago…it’s not as if the 2 clubs are sworn enemies. Too late now I guess.
June 14th 2012 @ 3:10pm
Cameron said | June 14th 2012 @ 3:10pm | Report comment
Is it really too late to merge? Both teams have similar colours, and before that point is derided, that was one of the major positives for the St. George-Illawarra merger and both clubs are still relatively small that would suit a merger between them.
June 14th 2012 @ 3:48pm
The Cattery said | June 14th 2012 @ 3:48pm | Report comment
That’s true. Of all the Melbourne clubs, these two are the closest when factoring in history, culture, size and even geographic proximity (the train line from Footscray goes through Kensington and North Melbourne before hitting Spencer St).
An advantage would be that it would open the door for either a stand alone Tassie team or a 3rd Perth team without going beyond 18 teams, which is already a large number of clubs, in my opinion.
June 14th 2012 @ 5:03pm
JamesP said | June 14th 2012 @ 5:03pm | Report comment
Good points Cattery – I don’t think North will survive in its current form long term. Etihad comes into AFL control in 2025 – that is still some years 13 years away (although the AFL may buy is sooner – refer to link). North and the Dogs would be a good fit from a range of different metrics including colours, location, socio-economic etc. They wouldn’t become a super club, but their combined membership is 60k. Many would drop off, but you;d surely be looking at least 40k, putting it ahead of Melbourne and the Saints (both around the 35k mark)
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/137652/default.aspx
Norths other option would be a re-location to Tassie. The benefits of this would be there would always be strong support whenever Tassie is playing in Melbourne (just like the Lions and the Swans).
June 14th 2012 @ 10:41pm
amazonfan said | June 14th 2012 @ 10:41pm | Report comment
Hopefully it is too late. The last thing that should be considered is clubs merging. It’s too emotionally devastating, and the idea of clubs (any clubs) merging should be relegated to the dustbin of history where it belongs.
June 14th 2012 @ 10:19am
JD1991 said | June 14th 2012 @ 10:19am | Report comment
The reason Hawks have done it and continue to do it – is to grow the membership (and support) base above the average which would of occurred if it was just located in Victoria.
This year we have 9000+ Tassie members. It has been mentioned that 33% of aus kick kids in Tassie are Hawk supporters. People in the age bracket of 18 to 30 move from Tassie to Melbourne each year – If Hawks have a significant proportion of these people alreadys as supporters/members, it grows the Hawks base above the average return based on just Victorian growth. Thus moves the Hawks up in a financial and an ability to get better fixturating and so called block buster games.
My problem is that clubs selling games into places like darwin and Cairns, does not provide the same benefits as the locals dont migrate to Melbourne in any numbers. Canberra for GWS is a different story. I believe there would be a good migration flow from Canberra to Sydney (and also vice versa). This would help GWS short and long term in developing there supporter base.
The Saints to Wellington is more applicable as there is a strong migration link from Wellington (and elsewhere in NZ) to Melbourne. This can provide a link to those migrants, when they move.
The selling of games should always be linked to the migration flows to maximise the best return/growth prospects in these ventures. Otherwise its just a straight cash grab and provides no long term fiscal hit – only a short term one.
June 14th 2012 @ 11:36am
The Cattery said | June 14th 2012 @ 11:36am | Report comment
Probably migration flows between Adelaide and Darwin, meaning Port might be a good fit to play a game in Darwin each season.
June 15th 2012 @ 11:18am
JD1991 said | June 15th 2012 @ 11:18am | Report comment
Yes – that is why Port is the away team in one of the Bulldogs games there each year. It would be a strong argument that Port will benefit long term from this arrangement moreso than the Bulldogs.
June 14th 2012 @ 12:04pm
JamesP said | June 14th 2012 @ 12:04pm | Report comment
GWS in Canberra is an excellent idea – almost half their membership base comes from the ACT. As I have said before, in the long term, if the Giants are packing Manuka out post their 10 year agreement with the ACT government, they should look to getting their own team (and GWS can drop the G from its name).
June 14th 2012 @ 8:19am
mds1970 said | June 14th 2012 @ 8:19am | Report comment
Willing seller, willing buyer.
It gives places that otherwise wouldn’t get AFL exposure, such as Tasmania, Canberra and Darwin, a slice of the action; bringing the game to areas that would otherwise miss out.
At the same time, it gives clubs a cash boost and/or a secondary market to expand their membership base.
June 14th 2012 @ 9:48am
Cameron said | June 14th 2012 @ 9:48am | Report comment
Not to mention the tourist revenue places like Tassie and Darwin get when interstate clubs and their supporters travel there to watch their team’s games.
June 14th 2012 @ 9:33am
Steggz said | June 14th 2012 @ 9:33am | Report comment
My opinion is that the NRL and AFL should take a leaf out of the A-League book and play a full ‘regional round’ (though possibly choosing its places a little better than they did). Darwin, Cairns, Wagga Wagga, Bendigo and Ballarat could be options for AFL. Perth, Bathurst, Cairns, Rockhampton, Coffs Harbour, Wagga Wagga, Albury, Dubbo as possibles for NRL.
June 14th 2012 @ 9:44am
Cameron said | June 14th 2012 @ 9:44am | Report comment
They already do this in pre season comps, and it is not viable to host premiership matches in all these towns – too small. As the A league gets bigger, it will abandon these games in these towns and focus on the bigger cities.
June 14th 2012 @ 9:48am
The Cattery said | June 14th 2012 @ 9:48am | Report comment
The AFL already does games in Darwin and Cairns.
At the moment Wagga, Bendigo and Ballarat don’t have the facilities to stage a full AFL game.
Smaller centres such as Albury, Wangaratta, Narrandera, Gippsland, Sunshine Coast, etc, often host pre-season games.
June 15th 2012 @ 11:24am
JD1991 said | June 15th 2012 @ 11:24am | Report comment
The A league and there crowd sizes, dont lose anything from a gate point of view, many AFL clubs would lose significant amounts from a gate receipt of doing this in season. Collingwood even when they play a Gold Coast etc – gets 40k to there game – which would equate to a gate receipts in the 100s of thousands.
In addittion the AFL has committments to stage X amount of games per year at venues. To meet that criteria, on top of games already sold may not be applicable. I think you will find especially with the Adelaide oval redovelopment and new Perth stadium, there is a committment of 22 AFL games at these venues each year. Otherwise there wouldnt be the committment to build/redevlope the venues.
June 14th 2012 @ 9:42am
Christo the Daddyo said | June 14th 2012 @ 9:42am | Report comment
Rodney – you’ve actually provided the answer yourself in this sentence: “Retaining a strong fiscal standpoint is fundamental to any business succeeding”.
If clubs can figure out ways of making the same money they make from selling home games some other way they will. The AFL will always encourage it as it spreads the profile of the game in a general sense.
I agree that GWS is making a rod for its own back by playing as many games as they are in Canberra – it will make an already difficult job of connecting to Sydney even harder.
For the Melbourne based team, I wonder whether the AFL won’t look at providing a smaller, boutique ground (say, around 25,000) that clubs can use to play against the low-drawing interstate clubs. It would need to be a low cost ground obviously.
June 14th 2012 @ 10:27am
The Cattery said | June 14th 2012 @ 10:27am | Report comment
Melbourne and the AFL had the perfect 30k ground available centrally, Princes Park, but for some reason, it has been lost for use for AFL games and these days is just a training venue.
I’m not 100% sure why it was spurned, but I can recall plenty of people saying it was worth holding onto for low drawing games.
It had decent facilities till recently, and was quite a good ground to go and watch the footy.
June 14th 2012 @ 12:02pm
JamesP said | June 14th 2012 @ 12:02pm | Report comment
They should have kept Princes Park going as a smaller boutique stadium, that could also accommodate drop in pitches for cricket – therefore serving as a potential Sheffield shield venue for a final if Victoria make it. Problem solved.
However, once Etihad stadium goes into AFL control – clubs like the Bulldogs and North will get an instant and quite substantial benefit.
June 14th 2012 @ 2:55pm
Rodney Penny said | June 14th 2012 @ 2:55pm | Report comment
I agree. Princess Park is ideal for the lower drawing games. I know this doesn’t bear a great deal of relevance, but watching a game at a packed 25,000 seat stadium is more aesthetically pleasing than watching a game at a quarter full MCG.
And it’s going to be fantastic when the AFL own Docklands, as clubs will be able to make a greater return from the gate and clubs like North Melbourne will be far better off.
June 14th 2012 @ 3:01pm
Cameron said | June 14th 2012 @ 3:01pm | Report comment
Rod your last point about Docklands is exactly why the AFL will never return to Princess Park, esp with AD recently commenting that the League is looking to buy out Docklands well before the 2025 date.
June 15th 2012 @ 11:16am
JD1991 said | June 15th 2012 @ 11:16am | Report comment
The other point about Princess Park is that it is not centrally located. It is close to the CBD but many people catching public transport need to catch multiple forms – thats why Doclands and MCG work so well – most only need to catch one form of public transport. For the number of games there would be no incentive by the Goverment to increase the public transport around the ground either – as the ground would be used less than 10 times a year.
Secondly – the car/road access to princess park was and always has been pitiful. Parking is poor, it became a traffic nightmare around the ground before and after wards – and would be even worse now with the increased flows of traffic from the non football public that occurs around the ground.
The third point is that the cost of maintaining the ground, especially when the AFL will soon (13 years is not long in the scheme of things) take over there own ground. The number of event days at Doclands per year is over 50 (40+ for AFL plus other games, soccer, NRL, cricket – big bash, concerts) the maintenance costs would be spread over a large number of events – these are usually fixed costs, more events mean costs are spread, less events (taking 10 odd games from this ground) means a higher per game cost. So that means the break even point would be higher for the games that stayed there.
Once the AFL take over Docklands, they will not be beholden to hold certain number of high profiled games at the venue per year – which they are now. With a third ground the total number of games that clubs would be pushing to hold at the ground may be lessened to a number that is not feasible (say 20, 10 games moved to the MCG, 10 moved to Princess Park)
With Melbourne/Victorian projected population to reach 6.5million to 7.2 million by 2050, the expectation would be the crowd size of all clubs and games should exceed the need of a boutique stadium capacity in the next 20 years – thus only providing a short term costly fix for a temporary issue. If a club cant get most of there games to exceed 25000 in the enxt 20 years they should seriously look at there model they have and see where they need to change it to reach this target. (There would be an odd game that will get below this number even then depending on events, but majority should exceed it)
June 14th 2012 @ 3:32pm
Rodney Penny said | June 14th 2012 @ 3:32pm | Report comment
I believe clubs have to find other avenues to making a profit. Sponsorship, attendances, merchandise, and membership are big keys to retaining that standpoint.
How do clubs such as North do that, when they find it hard to break even and don’t enjoy substantial support? Well then you have to look at marketing strategies. Find ways to connect to people and have an identity. Changing the name from North Melbourne to simply “Kangaroos” was stupid. They not only lost their identity, they also created a new one that didn’t connect with anyone. Changing the name back was a smart move.
Look at clubs like Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon and Hawthorn. They are big clubs with big name sponsors. Their apparel sponsors are companies like Adidas, Nike and Puma. While I don’t really care about those things, a lot of people do. Young kids go to a sports shop and want a pair of Nike boots in all sorts of crazy colours. You won’t find a skater or a surfer buying clothes from discount stores. The majority of them will buy brand name clothes.
So to reach out to the younger generation, brand recognition is more important than some of you might think.
And believe me, if clubs are that desparate for cash, they ought to look into things like that.
June 14th 2012 @ 10:42am
Lucan said | June 14th 2012 @ 10:42am | Report comment
I know the gate (dollars and statistics) is all important to the AFL, but I would like to see the AFL put their foot down on matches shifted from Melbourne involving “interstate” sides.
If Hawthorn, Richmond, North, want to take games away from Melbourne, they should take Melbourne opposition with them. The 8 “interstate” sides don’t get to play in Melbourne anywhere near enough already. While the MCG has a mortgage on the Grand Final, all 18 teams should have a fair crack (3 games minimum) at playing there during the H&A season, IMO.
June 14th 2012 @ 11:08am
The_Wookie said | June 14th 2012 @ 11:08am | Report comment
Most of the time its the interstate guys that want to go.
Gold Coast benefit by playing in Cairns, it helps them grow their base in QLD and they dont have to travel as much. Port REQUESTED Darwin, and I understand GWS have already requested to be the away team in NZ.
In Tasmania, the AFL sends teams that wont draw highly, which means non victorian sides, not that Hawthorn is overly happy about it, but thats what you get for spitting in the face of the people who do your fixture.
June 14th 2012 @ 11:18am
Cameron said | June 14th 2012 @ 11:18am | Report comment
GWS have requested to be the away team in NZ? Really?
I knew that it was going to be one of the Sydney teams as the NZ authorities were interested in selling NZ tourism to the Sydney market, but I was really hoping it would be the Swans as the contest provided would have made for a much better advertisment for the game in NZ than what GWS will likely provide.
June 14th 2012 @ 11:21am
The_Wookie said | June 14th 2012 @ 11:21am | Report comment
it’d be a sheedy thing, what with the proposal being for anzac day and all.
June 14th 2012 @ 11:38am
The Cattery said | June 14th 2012 @ 11:38am | Report comment
I thought I heard that Brisbane was going to be the Saints’ first opponent.
June 14th 2012 @ 11:48am
The_Wookie said | June 14th 2012 @ 11:48am | Report comment
yeah Brisbane appear to be the front runners according to the age.
June 15th 2012 @ 7:39am
Emric said | June 15th 2012 @ 7:39am | Report comment
Don’t get me started.
I am stunned that the guys i voted for are allowing the AFL to hijack ANZAC day in New Zealand for its own benefit
June 14th 2012 @ 1:40pm
Lucan said | June 14th 2012 @ 1:40pm | Report comment
Fremantle, Port, etc. CHOOSE to play away to Hawthorn in Tasmania every other year???
June 14th 2012 @ 1:48pm
Lucan said | June 14th 2012 @ 1:48pm | Report comment
“Most of the time its the interstate guys that want to go.” Catergorically incorrect.
The two WA sides publicly bemoaned playing in Tasmania. Especially under the old QANTAS affiliation. They’d have to switch aircraft in Melbourne, making the trip there 6+ hours compared with Hawthorn’s 90 minutes.
June 14th 2012 @ 3:57pm
Timmuh said | June 14th 2012 @ 3:57pm | Report comment
After Freo’s 8 hour debacle, the AFL promised to charter direct flights to Launceston. I have heard reports that West Coast always get those flights, and Fremantle sometimes do not.
No clubs choose to play there, the complaints are always that non-Vic clubs do not get enough games at the MCG. And that is a fair complaint, its where the Grand Final will be held; my view is that all clubs should get at least three games there so if they make the big one its not completely foreign to them.
June 15th 2012 @ 5:30pm
The_Wookie said | June 15th 2012 @ 5:30pm | Report comment
I didnt mean Tasmania when I speicifically addressed Cairns and Darwin. I could have thrown in Canberra as well.
June 14th 2012 @ 11:59am
The_Wookie said | June 14th 2012 @ 11:59am | Report comment
Article in News Ltd papers today saying the AFL will consider more games overseas and would like to revive the London post season exhibition game
http://www.perthnow.com.au/sport/afl/afl-to-widen-global-push/story-e6frg1xu-1226394830848
June 14th 2012 @ 1:59pm
Cameron said | June 14th 2012 @ 1:59pm | Report comment
The most interesting comment from that article is the AFL’s International development officier Tony Woods being quoted –
He said shifting home-and-away matches overseas and scouring the world for potential players were two of his objectives.
“We’re really eyeing off China as a region to supply talent in the medium to long term.”
This is the first time that I can recall an AFL official clearly stating the League’s objectives for international development.
June 14th 2012 @ 2:23pm
The Cattery said | June 14th 2012 @ 2:23pm | Report comment
It has always been about additional sources of playing talent.
I suspect the true motivation for maintaining links with the GAA is to allow more underage games where scouts can assess their best 15/16 year olds.
The AFL is now in its third year of having World XVIII and Sth Pacific teams in our national U16 championships – and that’s all about talent identification (although it’s been slim pickings to date).
June 14th 2012 @ 2:55pm
Cameron said | June 14th 2012 @ 2:55pm | Report comment
Cattery
I think it will remain slim pickings until there is a genuine Aussie Rules culture established there. But with the sporting culture in the Islands dominated by Union and League, I don’t know how Aussie Rules can establish itself to get the output of players to the level it wants.
Although you make a good point about Ireland, few would dispute that we have seen genuinely good AFL level players come from that country.
June 14th 2012 @ 3:02pm
The Cattery said | June 14th 2012 @ 3:02pm | Report comment
The investment is minimal at the moment, and likely to stay that way. So it’s just a case of plugging away, getting more schools to play, start up more comps, more games between PIs, invite the better players to represent the Sth Pacific in our national U16 and U18s, get some signed up as international rookies, etc, etc.
Can’t really do too much more with the limited resources involved.
June 15th 2012 @ 11:29am
JD1991 said | June 15th 2012 @ 11:29am | Report comment
The AFL are already using players such as nic Natinu, Edwards from North, now Folou to help with off season clinics throughout the Pacific. It will not take over from Union/League cultures but it can become a good alternate sport in those places.
I think it will not be long before you see an international rookie from one of the pacific islands.
June 15th 2012 @ 11:32am
The Cattery said | June 15th 2012 @ 11:32am | Report comment
I hope so.
June 14th 2012 @ 5:05pm
The Cattery said | June 14th 2012 @ 5:05pm | Report comment
New York Australian Football season kicks off:
http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20120608/west-village/new-york-australian-football-league-season-kicks-off
June 14th 2012 @ 5:41pm
yewonk said | June 14th 2012 @ 5:41pm | Report comment
skimpy shorts sledge is back i see, reporter is clearly a passive aggressive rugby league fan. a 3d game must be a new take on the 360 degree line.
June 14th 2012 @ 5:58pm
The Cattery said | June 14th 2012 @ 5:58pm | Report comment
The first time I ever heard someone use the 3D descriptor was Majak Daw early on in his career.
On reflection – he is spot on.