More clubs are too many for the AFL

there are too many teams in the afl already in the sense of how much harder it is to win a grand final. some fans have to wait decades just to win one final, because of the amount of teams competing. if there were fewer teams, st. kilda would of probably managed to win more then one flag in its entire history.

I agree with this sentiment in the main, especially when you peel away the rhetoric of emotion. The AFL as with it's competing codes, hold a criteria of growth based almost soley on a tele driven agenda which has had the effect of upping the anti on the code cold war in Oz. This top down approach to growth does not ensure the health of any given code and is in the main an illusion that sees elite comps grow while grass roots fail to keep abreast of an insatiable and unrealistic expectation at the top end, often being left to whither on the vine due to an ever thinning spread of resources. This is certainly NOT rocket science, it is simply to do with respective governing bodies and supporters, all of who are custodians of their codes, taking their eye off the ball in the belief that commercial growth is paramount.. The sentiment expressed on this thread seems to be lost on so many today, who prosaically justify a corporate sporting culture that is extrememly counter productive and ultimately unsuatainable - and it's not just our game that is at fault in this respect, however our governing body perpetuates the mnantra of fear that the game of Australian Footy has more to lose because it is not international apparently. They, the AFL, are cutting off their nose to spite their face, in their quest to become something they are not ,whether that be expansion into local demos that are hostile to the code, throwing filthy P.R. lucre at players who have hardly even seen a Sherrin, or any off shore folly that is to the expedient detriment of loyal footy heartlands, i.e the ACT and NT.

at a North fan - - I wanted us to either show some guts and jump in the water (so to speak - - into the surf of the Gold Coast) or get their toes out of the water and let the AFL and Southport and the GC footy community build something proper from ground up. As it is - - I reckon it's far better for footy this process of growing a 'local' club organically. If it doesn't work - - so be it.

All things going well - - clubs that survive to 2025 will thereafter be fine,....i.e. the AFL takes full ownership of Docklands and more money generated by the game will stay within the game and the AFL will have more leverage with the Govt axis of evil that gives the MCC way too much power at the AFL funded MCG..........let's hope anyway!!!

it made it onto roar.. :)

I disagree, i would not like to see any more Melbourne teams go, IMO a few will battle/struggle on, but even with a (your) proposed 14 team comp, teams will struggle, someone will come last, someone will be under the pump. Leave the Melbourne teams as they are. BTW, i am not from Melbourne, and do not follow a Melbourne team. Look at Melbourne and Hawthorn, they could have merged, now both are doing OK, it's cyclical.

The biggest question when we move to 18 teams will be whether we have a sufficient talent base to support all teams going forward or are we just going to see a dilution of quality? While Australian Football continues to such a minor sport in NSW and Qld this will continue to be an issue. But the only way to grow the popularity of the game and make it more national is take it to those people - so geographic expansion becomes necessary. The real issue for mine is the number of teams in Melbourne. If that number was reduced (relocations and mergers etc.) we could achieve geographic expansion without diluting playing strength. 2 teams in Qld, 2 teams in Sydney, 2 teams in Adelaide, 2 teams in Perth, a team in Canberra, a team in Tasmania and 6 teams in Melbourne - an elite 14 team competition with 26 rounds, get rid of the preseason competiton and everyone plays each other twice. 7 rounds per weekend with each match in a stand alone time slot. Of course there's way too much emotional baggage out there for that to happen but wouldn't be great?

Agreed, this piece is rubbish!

What's different about WS ?, its primarily a untapped huge population base that may 100 % have heard of Australian football but really has not identified with the Swans, who have a support base around the eastern suburbs. It may work, or it may not, my bet is that it will, but it will take time and money, something the AFL has said it has. I agree with you about Sheedy though, he comes across to me as smug as well, the AFL have chosen the path of controversy rather than the softly/softly approach.

I agree with the introduction of the 2 new teams, i am not so sure about the signing of Hunt and Folau, i hope i am wrong, but Hunt will be OK at best IMO. The game is being explored by many new kids in NSW/QLD, and i can see a day in the not to much distant future when QLD will match WA and SA as a genuine Australian football state, although depth wise possibly still a bit behind. In fact from where i sit in WA the game is being explored/played by many immigrant kids from the UK and South Africa. Both Freo and West Coast should be looking at and rookie listing South African and UK kids instead of West Coast looking at kids from South America which just seems crazy IMO. Quite a strong Australian football comp in the UK, although the Australian players in that league are high compared to other O/S comps as a %, but considering the amount of UK expats in Perth and who follow Australian football it would be good marketing to international rookie list some UK kids. ( if they were to standard). The last 2 weeks the opposing coaches in my sons football comp have been UK expats, its a huge market to tap into.

Where would the AFL be today if it hadn't expanded back in the 80's? It was heart breaking for some people and could have been handled better, but it was necessary in the bigger picture. If the AFL hadn't expanded, Fitzroy, South Melbourne and probably half the rest of the league would be dead today anyway. We should respect tradition and history, but not to the point where we are so inflexible that we ultimately hurt ourselves. The additional teams in Queensland and Sydney will add value to the Swans and Lions as well as increase the revenue pool for the whole league. It will improve the chances of keeping AFL in the headlines and in the public mind in those states, and will allow local rivalry which brings more excitement. Don't worry about the NRL, all this code war stuff is a red herring. The "invasion" talk is complete rubbish NRL/News Ltd propaganda appealing to support from their parochial core which the AFL isn't interested in anyway. The NRL can do as it pleases, it doesn't necessarily detract or hurt the AFL. If the NRL wants to humiliate itself attempting to compete with the AFL because of some delusions of rivalry, that's their problem. Financial problems are exaggerated, the whole league is relatively strong and no club is at serious risk of folding. People seem to ignore that even the weakest AFL clubs are still enormously strong in the context of Australian sport. Port Adelaide have debts in the millions, but there is no way they will fold. The AFL will not allow any club anywhere to fold, they now recognize it is a lose-lose proposition. It only reduces overall revenue and loses people to the sport. I have no problem with the AFL giving extra money to weaker clubs if need be. North Melbourne is in state of the art facilities, not portables by the way. People raised the same concerns about the season structure and the player pool when the league went to 14 teams, and again to 16 teams. The AFL coped then and it will cope now. I don't have the stats to hand but I do believe there is a bigger pool of players to draw from than 10 or 20 years ago. Maybe this will give extra chances to mature age recruits? Getting Hunt and Folau might encourage more kids in the AFL direction, or it may not. But at least the AFL is trying to some innovative things to increase the pool and the existence of two new clubs is only going to help. Running an 18 team season is a tricky one. Judging from media reports the AFL is very aware of the problems caused by 18 teams and aren't just shooting from the hip. I suspect that by 2012 the AFL will come up with a completely different way of running the season because an 18 team 22 round season with 8 finalists just doesn't work at all. Demetriou might come across as being arrogant to some people, but I don't think the game has ever had a more forward thinking and professional administrator.

University still exists and plays in the VAFA, and Fitzroy still exists in the form of the Brisbane Lions.

Because, amongst all other things it is a business, and the wise business minds that guide the AFL do NOT take the '$1 billion dollar tv rights...' for granted !

more auskick??!! but why bother when we can just get players from the NRL! NRL may as well be the TAC cup and Auskick :)

Vlad the impaler, if he was as passionate about politics as his footy the guy would be an unstoppable force in Australian politics , he has determination and doggedness of a hardnosed back pocket player determined to crush the life out of a nambypamby flashy forward pocket. (Milne) The reason IMO that he seems to be on top of everything is he really loves the game, can we say the same about Gallop, O'Neill and Buckley. As long as his passion remanins he will have this job. Demetriou played for Nth Melbourne, pretty tough old club and area. Yours in football Beaver fever.

There are people out there who currently do not pledge allegiance to a particular AFL club, these people do not dress their kids up in AFL supporter kit and do not sign their unborn up for club membership. Most of these heathens reside in Western Sydney and SEQ, the AFL sees this as a great injustice that must be rectified, the AFL will not sit idle while these infidels continue to not support the great Australian game. More teams, more money, more RL recruits, more publicity, more Auskick, more NAB starter accounts - the great Demetriou will have his way!

$1 billion dollar upcoming tv rights isnt good enough? why should it be all about the markets!!!!!!!!

. . . because Peter, as has been stated ad nauseum on the Roar and just about everywhere else in the universe, and I'll repeat it just for you . . . these 2 new teams will enable AFL to be played every week in the affected markets, considered important for TV rights etc. Its not simply '... establishing two new clubs' - but also where these clubs will be.

I love the fact that reason used to expand into Western Sydney and the Gold Coast is to tap "untouched markets". what is untouched about Western Sydney? We have had the Swans in Sydney for 30 years, and i would even say 90% of Sydneysiders or even people from Western Sydney have seen a Swans game either live or on TV in that 30 years. So what makes it "untapped". The people of Western Sydney have had 30 years to cosy up to AFL if they wanted to but they haven't, why is that? If it has such potential why in 30 years of the Swans presence in Sydney, representing all of Sydney have AFL not have a bigger supporter base in Western Sydney? Is it because not that many people out here rate it. Don't get me wrong like most Aussie blokes I like most sports whatever they are, I don't mind AFL football, I actually follow Port but I wouldn't spend money to watch them, and would only watch a match if they wasn't a League,union or soccer game on unless it was the Grand Final. From a person who grew up in the Blacktown area in Western Sydney and still lives here. I just think GWS has alienated a lot of their potential supporters. Kevin Sheedy(who I rate as a coach) has come up here and has rubbed people the wrong way, he has come across as smug smartarse.

Well, there is a saying that kinda goes like this - better to be the broad willow that bends with the wind, than the proud pine that gets snapped in two by the gale. Sort of says it all, I reckon.....