Expansion teams cost us quality finals

Each state needs a minimum of 2 teams. I think most would agree with that. But nevertheless there are just too many teams in the competition. This means a dilution of monies and football talent that can go into the existing teams. The VLF should never have been allowed to morph into the AFL. A new independent league should have been set up. There are just too many teams in Victoria. This will inevitably be remedied by mergers. Bad luck if your team happens to be doing poorly. It is always the bottom teams that are expected to make the sacrifice to either shift or merge. These are not attractive propositions, if they were, the top teams would be clamouring to do so. We are in this situation because the AFL is really the VLF re-morphed. I understand the reasons why the VFL was expanded in this way but it has given us the unfortunate situation that here are now too many teams in Victoria and another is that we now only the history of the VLF is valued. The WAFL and SAFL histories have been devalued to the extent that they are no longer relevant.

True Maximus PART of the record TV deal was the extra game each week, but how much? The previous deal was a record too remember. And while we all new the expansion would be difficult "for some teams" but I thik it is effecting more teams than we all thought, it's not just the lower teams but the mid tier team that have been held back.

Part of the record TV deal was the new teams - the competition is more even than ever (this year) maybe next year will be different but free agency may help but this year was always going to be difficult for some teams but I think the AFL have got out of it OK...The NRL apparently are struggling with their rights deal because they arent offering anything new and Fox have bid low as a result..The AFL offered an extra game, wider coverage and blockbuster Friday nights. The NRL have no room to offer much more - they cant get a new team up by next year - and the TV ad market has turned down, all Networks are struggling (and Nines debt is due next year and they will lose money on the Olympics (but get the halo effect) and AFL weekly ratings will again beat the NRL (one more FTA game) and may beat them overall. So AFL strategy seems to have worked...

AR The Lions on par with the Broncos seriously sure in 01-05 they surpass them for while but are nowhere near the Broncos now. Memberships from the Broncos side on things will continue to grow if anything they should be better than the Lions year in & year out considering there success and the fact league is the king in Brisbane. On the Swans side on things it's a disgrace from Sydney rugby league sides & supporters that are not outnumbered the attendance/memberships of the Swans it's embarrassing when you consider various league clubs have longer history of success, premierships & longevity in NSW yet don't draw the numbers due to the laziness of the supporters. Now we both know AR that league rates it sock off in NSW and the attendances should be better over time with the push for membership & developing an attendance culture. The fact the Swans/Giants managed to create a sizable foothold is partially due to the incompetent administration of rugby league & strong performances from the Swans to create an audience same applies with the Lions the bandwagon from 01-05 was huge and from it they were able to convert band wagoners to fans. Same it happening with the QLD Reds with there sudden surge of memberships & attendance.

Australian Rules - No I am not. Let's look at this like a product as the AFL are doing, market size is important. You argue that Sydney and Brisbane simply don't have the appetite for attending or becoming members of football clubs whatever the code, this to me shows the market in those cities is a small one. This is supported by your figures that show the best performing team in Brisbane and Sydney can not match the worst performing team in Melb as far as membership and attendance goes. My argument is if that is the case why do we need to expand into these markets? No other product would set up a competitor in a market where there is little appetite for it's product. Brendan has even suggested that North would of been better off shifting to the Gold Coast - why would anyone take a product out of a market where it si "treated like a religion" into a market where no one cares for it? And my "doom and gloom" predictions aren't based on the performance of the new clubs but of clubs that have been in their markets for decades and are still struggling for market penetration. And to say the swans or lions figures would be the envy of the NRL is irrelevant, they are competing with the NRL, all NRL sides have low memberships and low attendances, that is the business model of the NRL, the AFL's business model is based around high memberships and high attendances, if the new clubs can't match that they will have to be subsidised.

You're getting this so wrong. Australian Footy is religion in Melbourne. Trying to apply or expect that level of fan-support in Brisbane or Sydney is just delusional. All clubs rise and fall (memberships/crowds) depending on their success. The Lions are almost on par with the Broncos (members/crowds) in THAT market...an unbelievable effort if you've ever seen how much the Broncos dominate Brissie. The Suns made a profit in their first year (thru clever corporate structures) and despite being winless at home, still average 13,000+ in the 2nd year. Despite existing in the middle of League HQ, the Swans (members/crowds) would be the envy of any NRL club in (again) THAT marketplace. The Giants are not only a new team in League heartland, but they are openly treated with hostility by large sections of their community. Despite ridicule from NRL folk, the Giants are outperforming many established NRL teams in terms of members/crowds. But the most important point...is that neither club is 2 years old. Your doom and gloom forecast seems pointless at this early stage. All those 4 clubs have a base from which to grow theirmemberships/crowds. The best way to do that is with success...and that will surely come in time for the new guys.

JH - How many early picks do you think the blues had? Of the three number one picks Murphy is clearly elite, Gibbs is more than just "Handy" and Kreuzer is till developing and his injuries have set him back a bit. As for Carlton now they are in pretty good shape I would say, if you look at this weekends side and put Laidler, Henderson, Jamison and Judd in there, plus maybe one of Warnock or Hampson and developing forward Mitchell it looks a pretty strong side. The only first round pick I would really question at this stage is Kane Lucas, Bootsma showed a bit this year and Watson is coming along nicely

Fair point but look at Carlton now. Very few of the picks Carlton got have turned into (or looked like turning into) anything more than a handy player.

Australian Rules - What makes a club financially viable, getting paid up members and punters through the gate. If after 20 and 30 years respectively Brisbane and Sydney are still in the bottom tier of both members an attendances in the league how long will it take for the new boys to get to a decent size? And Brisbane aren't on the bottom by the way, 7 wins for the season so far has them well above Port, Bulldogs, Melb, GCS & GWS. The bulldogs have 30k members and averaging 24k for home games, Melbourne have 35k and averaging 30k for home games. And the reason I compare them to Melb clubs is that they are competing against Melb clubs, they aren't playing in the NRL so if they are not making money from the gate or members the rest of them AFL have to subsidise them to keep the playing field level (or in the expansion teams and Sydneys case slightly tilted as they have bigger salary caps).

Macca, your problem is that you seem to compare AFL crowds/memberships of the big Melbourne clubs, to those in Brissie or Sydney (which aren't that bad anyway). These are different cities with different cultures...and Sydney folk are simply not as one-eyed about sport as those down in Melbourne. BRISBANE has just over 20,000 members and the same in average crowds. Add 10,000 to both when they're not on the bottom of the ladder. SYDNEY has a tick under 30,000 members and about 22,000 average crowds this year (with half the stadium missing). These are the figures AFTER a competitor has been introduced. Any other code in the country would kill for these sorts of figures. If you compare every team to Hawthorn, Collingwood, WCE etc...they all look like failures! The Suns have NEVER won a game at home...yet on average, more than 13,000 turn up each week at Metricon to watch them. Can you imagine that happening in the NRL? When these guys get good...look out!

...the simple truth is expand, prosper or whither and die. Its a very competitive market and The AFL must take some risks as in any business, its all about the long term survival. So far the AFL have done a fair job of it. From where I sit in SE QLD the game is pretty healthy although I do think the local team of old administrators should be replaced with younger more dynamic personnel. There are over 60 AFL Queensland players on the paddock every w.e for various AFL teams and many more at the lower levels. Adding more expansion clubs doesn't equate to a lower standard of footy. There are a lot more talented kids coming through from so called non AFL states, the pool is bigger therefore more teams can be accommodated. As more kids up here get a sniff of the Sherrin the code will not flounder but become even bigger and better. But be patient it will come.

Oh and Brendan - What do you rate Judd as in terms of draft picks - The blues gave up Pick 3 and 20 plus Kennedy for Judd and pick 47, so is Judd a negative pick?

Brendan - Carlton in 2005 finished in Last with 1 win, in 2006 the were last with 3 wins and a draw in 2007 they were 2nd last with 4 wins, in 2008 they were 11th with 10 wins, in 2009 7th with 13 wins, 2010 8th with 11 wins and in 2011 5th with 14 wins - now what do you think caused that rise? Especially the jump from 4 wins to 10 wins from 2007 to 2008? The facts show Carlton benefited greatly from getting early draft picks, including the capacity to trade No. 3 pick Kennedy for Judd. And as you have previously said even if it is not top draft picks but late draft picks, the fact that 100 players have been taken out of the pool effect the quality of late picks. And even if you disagree with these facts, you have repeatedly agree that bringing in 2 new sides has diluted the talent pool - however some how you simultaneously fail to acknowledge this as being caused by the expansion teams. I also note you fail to acknowledge the accuracy of my comments regarding the Blues second tier players after deriding them?

Macca its not a contest that it is your problem.You have no basis to blame the expansion teams for the supposed quality of the eight.It matters not whether logical propositions are put to you or not .I have been consistent in my responses and highlighted Carlton as they have three number 1 picks (note i didn't mention Judd as a no 3) to illustrate that your contention that the lack of high draft selections has detracted from the teams in the eight.Similiarly i used Richmond and Melbourne as examples .Believe what you will but the new clubs are here to stay and many clubs including Carlton haven't adapted there mindset and are being left behind.

Ian - To me expansion sin't always a good thing, if a client came to me and said I want to expand my ice cream selling business into a new market my response would be very different between the gold coast or port campbell, the same with football teams.

Ian - I wouldn't be whining about NT Thunder and the Tassie devils if they did them now let alone in 20 years, in fact if it took 20 years to get a Tassie team I would be whinging it's taken too long. As for Brisbane & Sydney "paying off", what are their memberships and attendances? While I agree a national code needs teams in these "markets" they haven't been successful enough to have built a base big enough to support a competitor. And both those teams were subsidised for much longer than a decade. And you never answered my question regarding when the last time your man Karmichael got 15 possessions in a game?

Macca, The AFL's original expansion did the hard and risky markets - Brisbane and Sydney - first. The soft and easy Adelaide and Perth markets were done second. Even then, Indian Pacific Ltd - known to most of you as the West Coast Eagles - fell over and needed to be rescued. But the AFL doing the hard markets first paid off in the 20 years and more after. The VFL's original expansion saw the same sort of whining by people like you. It was hard, it was tough, and it built a national code. Its going to be the same story with GWS and Gold Coast. And in 20 years, you'll be whining about the NT Thunder and the Tasmanian Devils needing to be subsidised for their first decade or so.

I was very supportive of the AFL/VFL's previous expansions, however they were into area's where people actually wanted an AFL team. Forcing an AFL team into area's where there is no demand at the detriment to the existing clubs is something completely different.

Unfortunately Macca is not alone in Victoria in his unhappiness of the AFL Expansion policy- I contact some fans in Melbourne regularly and they absolutely hate this Expansion mode the AFL is in. They appear to be locked into a VFL view of the world, and expect the 10 teams in Melbourne to remain forever. They also laugh at the International expansion the AFL is very cautiously pursuing. It is obvious that they do not want to share the game they originally created with anyone outside of Victoria which includes SA and WA. It reminds me of the F.A. in England who were unhappy about the formation of FIFA by continental europeans.

Brendan- It's obvious you know you are beaten when you try so hard to change the subject, this has nothing to do with Carlton (although I can see the blues winning every game from here and the bombers losing every game so who knows about finals) and you actually agree with my contention so what are you sour about? As for world beaters in the Blues seconds, I think McInnes has shown enough to validate my claims about him, Casboult has been more than handy since coming in and looks very promising and you must of missed the article in last weekends Herald Sun stating the blues have found a key forward in Luke Mitchell after he has kick bags of 4 and 5 against the top 2 VFL sides in the last 3 weeks, so yes I did get it right. And on Carlton making finals and finishing top 4, I did get that wrong, I should really have picked Carrazzo & Murphy Missing 7 weeks each, Waite missing 9, Henderson half the season, Laidler almost the whole season, Simpson missing 3, Robinson 4, Walker about 8, Yarran about 4, Hampson 1/2 the year, Casboult, Miitchell, Davies and White all missing 1/2 the year, Jamison missing 4 games, Judd missing 4. I mean really why did I expect the blues to have gone better than they have?