SA Footy

The ultimate goal would be 20 teams, but that would mean state leagues ( beyond what they are now ) become football nurseries and retirement homes and anyone over 18 with talent is playing AFL and anyone with coaching ambitions goes back to state level and plays when they're in their 30's.

There's no way senior football at state level could be anything but purely development for the AFL if they want 20 teams.

Booney wrote:The ultimate goal would be 20 teams, but that would mean state leagues ( beyond what they are now ) become football nurseries and retirement homes and anyone over 18 with talent is playing AFL and anyone with coaching ambitions goes back to state level and plays when they're in their 30's.

There's no way senior football at state level could be anything but purely development for the AFL if they want 20 teams.

Its hard to make a case that its anything more than that already.

What the SANFL desperately needs is a significant pay gap between SANFL and Country/Ammos, just like there is between AFL/SANFL. Not sure that will ever happen.

I look at the North Eastern Football League up here and every team has at least two blokes who could walk into an SANFL club and play some league football this year. That's almost an entire team of players right there out of the SANFL system who 'should' be in.

You can say what you like about Ed but his love of the game and enthusiasm in growing it is undeniable.
Tasmanian tax payers having to cough up $20 million every year that's the killer right there.
I'm of the view, less is more in this instance.
Ed's line of thinking, and other business leaders is, if you aren't growing you are going backwards.
I don't agree with that line of thinking at all.

tigerpie wrote:You can say what you like about Ed but his love of the game and enthusiasm in growing it is undeniable.
Tasmanian tax payers having to cough up $20 million every year that's the killer right there.
I'm of the view, less is more in this instance.
Ed's line of thinking, and other business leaders is, if you aren't growing you are going backwards.
I don't agree with that line of thinking at all.

Its kind of true in the AFL because every extra game equals a massive windfall in tv rights.

Its a real interesting debate the $20 million a year.

You could definitely see that if Tasmania had 10 guaranteed home games that $20 million dollar could be generated into the economy in a similar fashion to how the Adelaide Oval move has boosted local business in the immediate region.

You could almost make an argument though that Tasmania coming into the AFL is just a big a win for the AFL as they would have increased TV rights and should have a self sufficient AFL team by having one in Tasmania. Surely astute business minds could make the team profitable when guaranteed capacity crowds of 20,000 and an entire state to draw sponsorship from.....look at the Kangaroos and how they are now profitable.

If the AFL creates in a team in Cairns to make the extra game on TV they are going to have prop up that team for entire existence in similar way to GWS and Gold Coast.

tigerpie wrote:You can say what you like about Ed but his love of the game and enthusiasm in growing it is undeniable.
Tasmanian tax payers having to cough up $20 million every year that's the killer right there.
I'm of the view, less is more in this instance.
Ed's line of thinking, and other business leaders is, if you aren't growing you are going backwards.
I don't agree with that line of thinking at all.

It's absolutely true! Why do you think GWS and Gold Coast were developed ahead of schedule?

I think Tas and NT are the logical progression but 12 team finals is fanciful. If you look at who finished 12th the last 5 years;

2016 - Collingwood 9-13 95%
2017 - Hawthorn 10-11-1 90%
2018 - Adelaide 12-10 104%
2019 - North 10-12 99%
2020 - Fremantle 7-10 93%

Only Adelaide in 2018 could possibly say they might've made it. And even then would they have been competitive? No.

tigerpie wrote:You can say what you like about Ed but his love of the game and enthusiasm in growing it is undeniable.
Tasmanian tax payers having to cough up $20 million every year that's the killer right there.
I'm of the view, less is more in this instance.
Ed's line of thinking, and other business leaders is, if you aren't growing you are going backwards.
I don't agree with that line of thinking at all.

Growing vs Improving.

More AFL teams is lowering the standard.

Do we need another 46 guys akin to Shaun McKernan, Dom Tyson and Billy Frampton running around in a supposed ‘professional/elite’ league? Na.

Lightning McQueen wrote:

tigerpie wrote:You can say what you like about Ed but his love of the game and enthusiasm in growing it is undeniable.
Tasmanian tax payers having to cough up $20 million every year that's the killer right there.
I'm of the view, less is more in this instance.
Ed's line of thinking, and other business leaders is, if you aren't growing you are going backwards.
I don't agree with that line of thinking at all.

Growing vs Improving.

More AFL teams is lowering the standard.

Imo Growing the business and improving the standard of football played are not necessarily related.

Take the 80's/90's as an example. Was footy ever better...…….I would argue no but as a business most clubs were on their knees.

whufc wrote:
Imo Growing the business and improving the standard of football played are not necessarily related.

Take the 80's/90's as an example. Was footy ever better...…….I would argue no but as a business most clubs were on their knees.

They move in opposite directions.

The only thing that is growing is the money generated through TV rights, if that's moving the game in the right direction then so be it, they are winning.

Lightning McQueen wrote:

whufc wrote:
Imo Growing the business and improving the standard of football played are not necessarily related.

Take the 80's/90's as an example. Was footy ever better...…….I would argue no but as a business most clubs were on their knees.

They move in opposite directions.

The only thing that is growing is the money generated through TV rights, if that's moving the game in the right direction then so be it, they are winning.

Sadly I think this would be the AFL's number 1 KPI...…………...followed second by junior/female participation which isn't a bad thing.

20 teams. There's not enough talent. It's already spread thin

Sent from my SM-G781B using Tapatalk

Round Seven

Friday, Apr 30 STADIUM (NETWORK) EST

Richmond vs. Western Bulldogs MCG (SEVEN) 7:50pm

Saturday, May 1 STADIUM (NETWORK) EST

Collingwood vs. Gold Coast SUNS MCG (FOX) 1:45pm
Adelaide Crows vs. GWS GIANTS Adelaide Oval (FOX) 2:10pm
St Kilda vs. Hawthorn Marvel Stadium (FOX) 4:35pm
Sydney Swans vs. Geelong Cats SCG (SEVEN) 7:25pm
Brisbane Lions vs. Port Adelaide The Gabba (FOX) 7:25pm

Sunday, May 2 STADIUM (NETWORK) EST
North Melbourne vs. Melbourne Blundstone Arena (FOX) 1:10pm
Essendon vs. Carlton MCG (SEVEN) 3:20pm 3:20pm
West Coast Eagles vs. Fremantle Optus Stadium (FOX) 4:40pm

Round Eight

Friday, May 7 STADIUM (NETWORK) EST

Richmond vs. Geelong Cats MCG (SEVEN) 7:50pm

Saturday, May 8 STADIUM (NETWORK) EST

GWS GIANTS vs. Essendon GIANTS Stadium (FOX) 1:45pm
Gold Coast SUNS vs. St Kilda Metricon Stadium (FOX) 2:10pm
North Melbourne vs. Collingwood Marvel Stadium (FOX) 4:35pm
Melbourne vs. Sydney Swans MCG (SEVEN) 7:25pm
Port Adelaide vs. Adelaide Crows Adelaide Oval (FOX) 7:40pm

Sunday, May 9 STADIUM (NETWORK) EST LOCAL
Hawthorn vs. West Coast Eagles MCG (FOX) 1:10pm 1:10pm
Western Bulldogs vs. Carlton Marvel Stadium (SEVEN) 3:20pm 3:20pm
Fremantle vs. Brisbane Lions Optus Stadium (FOX) 4:40pm 2:40pm

The money generated goes to making sure the Melbourne teams survive.
There's at least one, maybe two Melbourne clubs too many, but they'll all survive because if they start losing their way the afl will prop them up.

tigerpie wrote:The money generated goes to making sure the Melbourne teams survive.
There's at least one, maybe two Melbourne clubs too many, but they'll all survive because if they start losing their way the afl will prop them up.

No Melbourne Club will go, there's too much history.

7 of the top half (9) are victorian clubs.... it's still the VFL isn't it! haha

Booney wrote:

F**** mate, wubsy isn't going to have a field day now.

Lightning McQueen wrote:

Booney wrote:

F**** mate, wubsy isn't going to have a field day now.

Particularly as the entire differential for both the Western Bulldogs and Sydney was delivered during the 2016 GF

Lets keep it in perspective.
9 & 1/6th seasons, call it 200 games.
The best is +2.25 frees per game and the worst is -1.6 frees per game.
Half the comp is within +/- 1 free per game.

Safe to say, generally it works itself out.

Trader wrote:Lets keep it in perspective.
9 & 1/6th seasons, call it 200 games.
The best is +2.25 frees per game and the worst is -1.6 frees per game.
Half the comp is within +/- 1 free per game.

Safe to say, generally it works itself out.

I think the table above suggests it doesn't.