Australian Rules ... Australian?? C'mon!

The NRL though has a team in NZ - in a sense,independant of RL in NZ. i.e. RL in NZ is in serious financial and organisational trouble - seeking a help from the ARL - - and numbers have apparently dropped from 40K to 22K over recent years. Does any of that really matter for a franchise in the NRL? Does the state of domestic Kiwi soccer really matter for the Phoenix who have a global pool of talent to draw upon? (the poor Phoenix - - for international 'club championships' - they don't really belong anywhere at the moment).

Michael C, We would probably get crucified by some of the other supporters from our clubs for talking the way we do then. I would entertain a relocation for Richmond if it came to that. Tasmanian Tigers would have a good marketable name. I personally think that Tassie could manage about 8 home games split between Launceston and Hobart, so 3 home games plus 8 away games in Melbourne would be better than 22 games in the VFL. As to whether a team will need to relocate to Western Sydney or the Gold Coast we will see. If that happens, then that would complete my equation of two less teams in Melbourne. But teams can not relocate indefinitely from Melbourne or there would be none left. Therefore I really hope that a Gold Coast team can make it on its own. Perhaps New Zealand is just too far off in the future to be talking about, the game is not even developing as fast there.

Paul - a couple of years ago I emailed SEN saying North should just jump in fully (rather than their annoying toe dipping into 'markets') and become a Gold Coast club - - either than or the AFL should give Southport a licence. I'm probably happier from the 'good for football' perspective that the Gold Coast get a home grown entity (should it all go through). I'm dirty that the Kangaroos basically ended up very public and made it clear - effectively - that they'd only go to QLD as a last resort (not really the public message that should be sent out - - but, it really did appear that they had most their resources working AGAINST the proposal rather than FOR it). However - I'm actually happy enough now that North Melbourne is BACK. And toe dipping is over - and, now, we finally stand for something again. The 2 city best of both worlds that the Swans and Lions have is something not to be take lightly. The new QLD and NSW clubs created from ground up WON'T have a Victorian traditional supporter base membership buffer. The Swans still have somewhere around 8K Vic based members - - not bad at all for a NSW club!!! Perhaps the greatest liklihood is still that in the medium term a North Melb will have to merge/relocate into the West Sydney entity - and create another two city supporter base. That would also benefit a Hawthorn were they to relocate to Tassie. But - it'd be nicer that if the above happened that by then hopefully the Tassie Devils could step up to the big time stand alone. ------ re what it takes to support a team - - the actual Melb vs Australia wide membership base of each club would be interesting to see. At anyrate - - the capacity to convert supporters to members is vital. I'm pleased now that North offer a country family membership for 5 games - - cheaper - - and more realistic. It'll be interesting next year onwards - with no interstate home games - just how the membership numbers will go, as the 11 game home package will cost quite a bit more than the current 8 game packages (which have suited me just fine over the years).

Michael C, You're a North Melbourne fan. Then you will probably get annoyed with me at some point if you read my blog, because I have been quite critical of North's refusal of the AFL's $100 million offer to relocate to the Gold Coast. So please accept my apologies in advance. I'm a Richmond supporter, but I will go out on a limb here and say that if my team looks like it is on the brink of collapse then I would certainly prefer relocation. I'm just not sure how many teams Melbourne can support, in my estimation a population average of 500 000 is needed to support a team. This means 7 teams in Melbourne (plus Geelong), which means 2 will have to go. But, I could be wrong, perhaps all 10 will survive. It's just that the track record of South Melbourne and Fitzroy not surviving and then other clubs going on fundraising drives to survive suggest that this will happen again in the future. So I see it as a game of musical chairs with the Melbourne teams. South Melbourne and Fitzroy have some very good chairs in the game now. Arguably Fitzroy have an even better chair than South Melbourne. I would have to think that the Gold Coast is also a more favourable location than Western Sydney. Each of those two has more market potential than Tasmania. Finally, Canberra or New Zealand will be a long road. But the AFL will financially support any move they are behind, as long as necessary. All of the Victorian Clubs carry the same opinion. None of the other clubs such as St Kilda or Footscray put their hand up when North Melbourne turned the offer down. But I fear that eventually someone will miss out on a chair and find themselves relegated to the VFL. For some this may be what they want, but for others, this may be a loss. I guess it is for the members to decide. It's really hard for any of us to be impartial. So again please forgive me if I have stepped on your toes.

The Substitute - as a North Melb fan - I DISLIKED very much the North Melb alignment with the Tassie Devils - I didn't see it as good for either side. The most logical alignment - if there were to be one - would be with Hawthorn - - but, they're too firmly entrenched at Box Hill - it seems. Tassie seems to have always had a bit of trouble with unified footy and cricket - but, the cricket side seems to have got their house more in order in recent years - hopefully the footy side does too - - - the best case to present for Tassie would be for the Devils to be a regular top 4 VFL team - - suddenly - - you have the team/club all ready to go - - too easy!

Michael C, There are quite a few Tasmanians that actually like the fact there is no AFL affiliate. This means the team is made up 100% by locals, so perhaps an AFL affiliate would do more harm than good. But it is good to here that unity is on its way to Tassie football. (The North v South divide probably hurts their AFL bid a lot).

I heard Darryn Cresswell the other day on SEN - he's coaching the Tassie Devils (off to a flyer in the VFL this year). He admitted that he was a bit surprised - upon returning to Tassie after about 15 years - to see the direction (backwards) footy had taken. He admitted that they were still someway off - - and hopefully, the AFL didn't dismiss Tassie outright - - hopefully, Tassie can get it's house in order and be in a position to move forward towards the goal of an AFL team. First step now at least - the Tassie Devils have no AFL affiliate this year - however, they no longer train in about 3 or 4 separate groups - - they have all got together in Hobart and are now a united team. Hopefully, Tassie can start moving forward on a unified front. Interesting to see young Jack Boon (16) make a VERY successful debut for Clarence on the weekend - - perhaps......a 2nd Boon might take Tassie out ofthe doldrums in another sport this time......

This is an interesting debate, no less because it seems to be mostly if not all Aussie Rules fans. I have a friend who laments that the days of 6 games on a Saturday afternoon are gone. They were wonderful days to be sure, but the world is always changing. Professionalism is bigger than sport itself, and as much as nearly all of us despise it to some degree it is also a reality. Money rules sport, and we have to accept that. I wouldn't blame the AFL per se. It is the rule of business: if you don't expand, you will be taken over by some one else. If the VFL had stayed as they were, then perhaps Melbourne would be more of a Rugby or Basketball city than it is. The VFL needed to expand in a dog eat dog world, just to survive. Like a struggling Victorian club, the VFL made it over the hump and are now surging ahead. I do want to see a team in Tassie. I also find it harsh of the AFL that they simply rejected the Tasmanian government in their bid for a team. Perhaps they should have let the Tasmanian government bear the financial load of a new team there. I guess that is not the way the AFL has done things, they chose to bear the load themselves and do not want to be responsible for a Tassie team in a small market. I contend that if Hawthorn can plat three games a year successfully a year that there is a path to a Tassie team. When St Kilda played in Launceston there were 4 games a year. If Launcestos is able to host 4 games, then Hobart would be capable of doing the same. This would be 8 games a year. 8 games is not enough for a team that comes completely from Tassie. So the Tasmanian government's best chance to get a team is to convince a Victorian team to relocate, but throw in the sweetener of 3 "home" games in Melbourne until the Tasmanian population can support 11 games. The AFL would have a hard time arguing with this if a Victorian club agreed to the relocation. Hawthorn have made it clear that they are not interested in such a move. Jeff Kennett recently said that Tasmania would never get an AFL team. The best the Tasmanian government is do is wait until a Victorian club is teetering on the edge, and then catch them before they fall.

Tassie needs a team, no doubt. But I think that the AFL is evolving into a lifeless entity anyway, so Tassie isn't losing much. I mean what sort of crowd do they expect for the Gold Coast vs Western Sydney at Stadium Australia ? Not only will it be a bunch of cocaine snorting metrosexuals revelling in a backward kicking floodfest, but it will be devoid of any real passion or support. Sure, you might get a few bums on seats and a modest TV audience, but you can't buy or manufacture passion and support. The AFL has lost the plot and has hijacked our much loved game for its own financial gains. They forget that it was the passion and support which got them there. That is the real reason why people are heading back to state leagues like the SANFL and WAFL in record numbers. They don't care how much money the AFL makes or how many hollow teams it admits. They just want to see a good hard footy contest.

Michael C, Dangerfield was truly amazing in that game. I have been wondering lately whether Hawkins would get many games if Nathan Ablett was still playing in the AFL. Yes true about the men. In fact the state league may actually be tougher than the AFL, however will not be as fast at all. Hopefully they are pushed in the games so that they are ready when they do actually make the AFL. I suppose in the end most players at those ages are still developing as footballers,, and if they spend the time getting to know one another and how each other plays before AFL entry, the better the team will be. I suspect that in a few years the new GC side may be the envy of many of the poorer AFL clubs. They will most likely have up-to-date facilities to go with a great lifestyle.

Forgetmenot - true re the 17 yr olds, however, in general, only a select few are truly ready to go straight up - - perhaps Dangerfield at Adelaide vs Moggs Creek!!! Even Tommy Hawkins showed that he is a far better option as a 19yr old than as an 18 yr old. whether playing VFL or AFLQ - either way, they'll be up against men. THe main difference for many is that they won't get 1 or 2 games here and there. But - they'll be able to develop physically and under the watch eyes of their club rather than for a feeder club in the VFL or WAFL where they may or may not have fully consistant messages and game plans. But - obviously, any top 10 quality picks they get - - it'll be a stretch for them.

Michael C, I feel that if the GCFC has to merge with a Melbourne club, it will be the end of football on the Gold Coast. However if it were to happen in Western Sydney it would not be so bad, as the people there dont really know much about the sport anyway. Yes it would be great being a 14 year old. But perhaps the 17 year olds are a bit anxious. They may be playing in the AFLQ league for the first 2 years of their AFL career.

Timmy E, All I was doing was pointing out that if you say the AFL is not a national comp because it isn't in Tasmania, you could also argue it isn't a national comp because it doesn't have as much an impact on the Queensland and NSW markets. I wasn't saying it shouldn't be a national comp because of that. I won't go into too much detail because I have in the past blogged about this topic, but the new teams actually do much more for the AFL's national footprint than a Tasmanian side - because Tassie is already established AFL territory. Contrary to popular belief, a Tasmanian team would thrive but because Tassie (being AFL territory already) does not add value to the broadcast rights much at all, a team would only be a result of a merger/relocation.

Forgetmenot - I'd think the Hawks could work (so long as they don't trod over the Burnie Hawks is it??). But, doing the ground work over x number of years of playing minimum Y number of games - they'd be the only club in a real 'relocatable' position re. Tassie. I wouldn't be surprised that should the new 17th and 18th clubs be seen to be struggling that they might 'merge' (take over - - like Brissie to the Roys) a struggling club - - which, may see the Roos merged out of Melbourne. However, should the GC17 guys succeed in engaging the community and running a highly visible and popular strip and name and logo etc - - then, you wouldn't need a 'merge in' identity and history like what Brisbane seem to have done well with - with the Lions - to help erase the memories of the dark old VFL off-cast Bad News Bears. And that's probably the main thing now, going forward, that the AFL commission acts for the game more so than JUST the short term self interest of the constituant clubs. Back in the Bears day, the VFL Commission was still just struggling with how it was going to go about having a draft full stop on the back of the Foschini restraint of trade case. It was a period of major change, and the Bears were a patchwork quilt resultant. The fact that clubs aren't getting their backs up (publicly - NOW - post recent AFL presentation to club presidents) about the potential draft concessions and player warehousing etc - - means that the AFL seem to have a reasonable grasp on managing this proces - - - but for 2 brand new clubs in such short time.........it's gonna be good to watch!!!, and, who wouldn't love to be a 14 yr old with a bit of talent right at the minute.

The AFL is going in the direction of securing the game for the future. With more people following the code in QLD and NSW, the game will be able to a support a club in Tasmania, a state which will require more financial support than West Sydney and the GC put together (put simply Tasmanians all have clubs they follow, and it will require about 3 generations for 85% of them to follow that one club). I expect a merger in Victoria, and an entirely new Tasmanian club in the future. A relocated one will not work.

What is "National"? THe 'National' in the NRL??? 3 states have a team, but, RL is really only a sport in 2. And yet, they produce an apparent National Team, claiming to represent Australia. That works ONLY on the basis of stating that the NRL is the highest level 'elite' Rugby League competition nationally - - and therefore, is the National RL and the team that represents it IS the national team. Obviously, the Wallabies are barely more representative by virtue of players from Perth via the Force, but, participation wise, is less representative than the ARL Kangaroos. There IS NO national ARU comp, only rep teams in the Super 14s. That's a little more 'fluid' that whole arrangement. The level of popularity of the above 2 is limited outside of the 2 primary states. (I'm for this just leaving the ACT as part of NSW - it's too many characters to keep referring to it as a 'special case') The AFL - - it is certainly the highest level elite competition available within the nation. It happens to have teams from 5 ALL 5 mainland states. And while it may not be number one in ALL the states - it is certainly representative of reasonable levels of competition in all 5 mainland states. Plenty of reason to be called a 'national competition'. Irrespective of whether Tasmanina is there or not. Any debate about 'truly national' - - - well, again, what does that mean? --Does it mean 2 teams minimum in each of 5 mainland states therefore offering a 'home' game a week guarranteed each round for each state. I presume the AFL is angling towards this. --Simply at least one team per state and territory. Well, no one has that, and the reality is that the 'bigger' the competition the harder it is to fit in NT, ACT and Tassie stand alone by virtue of economy of scale arguments etc. I think this is only a 'theoretical' nice to have. In reality, I doubt it'll happen anywhere, truly - for some time. Obviously, the AFL is well placed to be the first to have a minimum 2 teams in each of 5 mainland states. FFA is seeking to - via it's 'priorities' - is seeking to have a major presence in NSw and QLD, with 2 in Vic and stuff all outside of that. Both those codes have a bit of work to do before Tassie would hit the radar. Niether is seriously discussing the ACT or NT. The best best for Tassie may still be that upon the AFL achieveing 18 clubs and min 2 per mainland state, that there may be a relocation to Tassie, however - you'd never expect a 2 teams in Tassie scenario with a game a week in the Apple Isle ..... unless the tourism economy REALLY fires, or the hydro economy finds a way to employ many more people....

So you are saying that the AFL should change its name because its not popular in QLD or NSW? That makes no sense. It is called the AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL League because it is a league playing Australian football. Having it called the Aussie Rules Football League would have the exact same meaning. So im not really sure where popularity QLD and NSW come into defining whether it can be called a national league. I thought the basis of the comment was that all states are not represented in the AFL, which was responded to in the first comment. If popularity determines what a competition is to be called, then why is it called the NRL when the game is not number 1 in Melbourne or New Zealand. How can they call it Super 14s Rugby when there is no place called Super and Superman doesnt own it? The questions could be endless. Just because it would seem nice to have a team in every state and territory, it just doesn't work. You need to build a league around market size and strength. There are no other leagues with teams evenly proportioned around regions in any given country, just because of geographical consequence.

How is it a truly national comp if it is not popular in Queensland and NSW? The argument goes both ways.

Good point, but... You cant put teams in locations, you have to put teams in markets. The state of Tasmania has 500,000 people compared to 1.8 million in west sydney. The ACT houses 340,000 people compared to the city of Gold Coasts' 530,000. How can you justify putting a team in a state that has less people and supporters than one city on its own? There are no professional sporting teams in Tasmania for a reason, they dont suceed. The hawks draw ok crowds three times a year in Launceston. There is already the Canberra Raiders and ACT Brumbies in the ACT. Runnning a $20 million a year sporting franchise in these markets will not work. If you are really upset by the AFL calling themselves a national leage (like the NRL does), then lets change the name to the League of Australian Football. Case closed.