by Booney » Fri May 12, 2006 8:13 am
by MightyEagles » Fri May 12, 2006 10:38 am
by Booney » Fri May 12, 2006 10:41 am
by Leaping Lindner » Fri May 12, 2006 10:56 am
Booney wrote:With the new TV deal ensuring 8 games each and every week,the AFL must have 16 clubs operating.This means several clubs which have and will continue to struggle on a financial basis will be for ever having money poured into them by the AFL.This is my question.
With the clubs knowing this is the case poor management could become the "norm" for these teams,like the Kangaroos,Carlton,Bulldogs.I am not suggesting that any of them would deliberatly perform poorly off the field,but the managment does not have to exceed in any areas to look good.I am sure the AFL would set guide lines a KPI's for the clubs to achieve,but what if they dont meet this criteria,what would the AFL do?
by doggies4eva » Fri May 12, 2006 3:21 pm
Booney wrote:With the new TV deal ensuring 8 games each and every week,the AFL must have 16 clubs operating.This means several clubs which have and will continue to struggle on a financial basis will be for ever having money poured into them by the AFL.This is my question.
With the clubs knowing this is the case poor management could become the "norm" for these teams,like the Kangaroos,Carlton,Bulldogs.I am not suggesting that any of them would deliberatly perform poorly off the field,but the managment does not have to exceed in any areas to look good.I am sure the AFL would set guide lines a KPI's for the clubs to achieve,but what if they dont meet this criteria,what would the AFL do?
by stan » Fri May 12, 2006 8:03 pm
doggies4eva wrote:Booney wrote:With the new TV deal ensuring 8 games each and every week,the AFL must have 16 clubs operating.This means several clubs which have and will continue to struggle on a financial basis will be for ever having money poured into them by the AFL.This is my question.
With the clubs knowing this is the case poor management could become the "norm" for these teams,like the Kangaroos,Carlton,Bulldogs.I am not suggesting that any of them would deliberatly perform poorly off the field,but the managment does not have to exceed in any areas to look good.I am sure the AFL would set guide lines a KPI's for the clubs to achieve,but what if they dont meet this criteria,what would the AFL do?
I thought poor management was the norm for most of these clubs
by sydney-dog » Fri May 12, 2006 8:31 pm
by Ian » Fri May 12, 2006 9:59 pm
by sydney-dog » Fri May 12, 2006 10:18 pm
by RustyCage » Fri May 12, 2006 11:08 pm
Ian wrote:Let them die a natural death, the number of clubs in Vic. (paticullary Melbourne) needs to be reduced, and dont just move them interstate, ideally the comp would have no more than 12 teams, and go back to one home and one away game against each other,
Let the scum die.
by Ian » Sat May 13, 2006 12:57 am
pafc1870 wrote:Ian wrote:Let them die a natural death, the number of clubs in Vic. (paticullary Melbourne) needs to be reduced, and dont just move them interstate, ideally the comp would have no more than 12 teams, and go back to one home and one away game against each other,
Let the scum die.
I agree, get rid of the Crows.
by sydney-dog » Sat May 13, 2006 10:05 am
by Strawb » Sat May 13, 2006 7:02 pm
by RustyCage » Sun May 14, 2006 6:36 pm
Ian wrote:pafc1870 wrote:Ian wrote:Let them die a natural death, the number of clubs in Vic. (paticullary Melbourne) needs to be reduced, and dont just move them interstate, ideally the comp would have no more than 12 teams, and go back to one home and one away game against each other,
Let the scum die.
I agree, get rid of the Crows.
Starting to get sick of losing show downs are we?
by mick » Sun May 14, 2006 6:41 pm
by Ian » Sun May 14, 2006 10:10 pm
pafc1870 wrote:
No, I just hate people saying they should get rid of some clubs. How would you feel if your club was just left to die off without any help from the AFL?
by mick » Mon May 15, 2006 7:45 am
Ian wrote:pafc1870 wrote:
No, I just hate people saying they should get rid of some clubs. How would you feel if your club was just left to die off without any help from the AFL?
Yeh, I'd probablly be upset, only if it was North adelaide, to me the AFL is only secondary, but yes people with the same passion for an AFL club would be upset, but......
Why should the AFL prop up a club at the expebse of the other teams? Surely they should be able to make enough money to survive comfortably, if not that just proves my point, there are too many sides in Melbourne, like it or not thats the way it is, and yes, the AFL should take most of the blame. When the then VFL decided to expand into other states, they should have done one of two things,
Left the VFL as it was, and call tenders for the AFL licences (max 12), if you couldn't afford it, you stayed where you were.
or
Convinced the SANFL and WAFL to ammalgamate with them making a 3 (10 team each) division compitition with relegation and promotion.
You would have had no Power, and no Crows, but you would have had 9 (or 10) sides based in SA that already had a supporter base that was genuinlly passionate about their club, some would have ended up in div. 1, some in div 2, and some in div 3, as would have the other states.
.......but alas, they gread of the VFL saw them want it all to themselves and they created a monster that has lost touch, let all 16 clubs sink for all I care. (and the real footy can take over)
by doggies4eva » Mon May 15, 2006 9:39 am
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |