AFL – long term structure.

[Spirit of Santos]

The spectre of A-League divisions is often spoken about. The general consensus is that it’s simply not possible, and that it would severely limit the quality of the game. Likewise for the NRL.

The AFL, I believe is the one Australian professional competition that is capable of operating with a promotion/relegation system.

It is soon to be an 18 team competition. To stay true to the AFL's national ambition yet more teams would need to be added to major population centres. Let's say one in Newcastle, one in Canberra, one in Tasmania, and one in North Queensland.

That makes it 22 clubs. Too big for one single competition, but an ideal number for a competition split into two divisions of 11 teams. This allows for a proper home and away season of 20 rounds.

The premier League could be known simply as the Australian Football League and the lower League as the AFL 2. The appropriate number of clubs promoted and relegated I would suggest would be two.

The reasons I think the AFL could sustain this model:

• The Victorian, Adelaide and West Australian AFL clubs (ie the majority) have well established fan bases with support being passed down from one generation to the next. This fact suggests that these clubs could cope well with being relegated to a second division for a number of seasons. Indeed the loyal following Port Adelaide received in the SAFL is I believe living proof of this.
• The AFL receives a huge amount of money for TV rights and has proven its self adept at constructing deals that both maximize revenue and coverage. TV rights for two divisions would likely be split over a couple of FTA networks and Foxtel. Potential for yet more television revenue.
• They would be two relatively small divisions. The standard in both should be reasonably high, therefore quite interesting and watchable for both spectators and TV viewers.
• Unlike in Association Football in Europe, AFL 2 teams that are well managed could conceivably be promoted, establish themselves and then challenge for the AFL Premiership because of the leveling effect of the salary cap.

Reasons I think it would be good for the comp and the game overall:

• Allows for greater geographic coverage while not killing off or relocating 100 year old Melbourne clubs
• As mentioned before, allows for a fair and respectable home and away season – a big improvement on the present farce.
• C’mon, promotion/relegation, how cool is that? It creates interest at both ends of the premier division. For the entire second half of the season the bottom 4-5 clubs will be fighting desperately to avoid relegation, while the top 5-6 will be battling it out for the premiership.
• In two team towns like Adelaide and Perth/Freo a Manchester scenario is likely to develop with one club being historically in a higher division thereby having a large casual supporter base and the other having a smaller but more dedicated following. This creates a more intense rivalry as the teams may not actually play each other for years.
• More variety, more cut and thrust. You think a Collingwood-Cartlon game is intense now imagine a match where a Collingwood win will relegate Carlton.

Problems with this system:

• A major change, untried in Australia.
• Would likely necessitate further support/favoritism for The Swans, The Lions and the new expansion teams as these clubs would presumably not fair as well as the clubs from traditional AFL territory if they went down to the lower division.
• Negative effect on crowds as the draw would no longer be rigged with attendance figures in mind.

This is my view from the outside looking in. I’d be interested in the thoughts of Aussie Rules fans.

[Egan]

In Perth the supporter bases were decimated of the WAFL teams when the Dockers were admitted in 1995...particularly the Fremantle WAFL sides.

It has only been a sell out Subiaco and a lot of hard work that has seen a resurgence in WAFL crowds over the last three years. Particularly for blockbuster matches.

While the Weagles will be ok, I doubt many others will be...

In two team towns like Adelaide and Perth/Freo a Manchester scenario is likely to develop with one club being historically in a higher division thereby having a large casual supporter base and the other having a smaller but more dedicated following. This creates a more intense rivalry as the teams may not actually play each other for years.

In Perth its already the Manchester situation. One club is absolutely loaded, the other is loaded but doesn't have as many fans. Has the classic chip on the shoulder "everyone should think of us as the people's club mentality"

I think relegation does not work, because the sporting market is SO competitive all over the country. Will you watch a 2nd division match, or will you spend your money on a Socceroos International? In the US they have the population to support the venues they build. They have 2 Football codes, we have 4 leagues. All the international events etc. We are just way too competitive for our existing population to handle relegation.

[Spirit of Santos]

Despite the expansion teams in my scenario, my solution is basically the current AFL competition split in two.

While the WAFL is called semi-professional, would I be right in saying that in reality it is amateur?

The AFL 2 would be professional and national, largely being made up of the current clubs with their infrastructure and support bases. It'd be covered on commercial television and played out of the same stadiums. Revenue sharing and salary caps would ensure that the lower division is of a strong standard.

I’m thinking long term here which is what the AFL does best. A single 18 team competition in my view is too large and dosent allow for the nation wide coverage they aspire to.

[beastjim]

What of the draft? Do you pretty much rank the teams with the AFL2 teams getting first pick and AFL1 after them.

[yob]

^^ They'll sell it to a naming rights sponsor. Either Strongbow, West End, or a window installation company with shoddy workmanship.

[the crow]

AFL long term structure......

wait till Australia win FIFA bid...
dig heals in......
hand out for mucho cash...

[Egan]

Despite the expansion teams in my scenario, my solution is basically the current AFL competition split in two.

While the WAFL is called semi-professional, would I be right in saying that in reality it is amateur?

The AFL 2 would be professional and national, largely being made up of the current clubs with their infrastructure and support bases. It'd be covered on commercial television and played out of the same stadiums. Revenue sharing and salary caps would ensure that the lower division is of a strong standard.

I’m thinking long term here which is what the AFL does best. A single 18 team competition in my view is too large and dosent allow for the nation wide coverage they aspire to.

No, the salary cap is about $300,000 and uses the points system of the old NBL because of salary cap cheats like Subiaco who paid players $50,000 a year to wash cars...

[Nines]

While the WAFL is called semi-professional, would I be right in saying that in reality it is amateur?

No .

I don't know why you proposing something you obviously know nothing about .

If there were more AFL teams then the obvious way to go would be play each other once .
Even now it makes sence to have conferences where you play your conference twice and the other once .

.

[Rob]

What of the draft? Do you pretty much rank the teams with the AFL2 teams getting first pick and AFL1 after them.

This, along with every other equalisation measure, is why relegation is less suited to the AFL than pretty much every other sporting league. You probably could come up with another 10 teams that would all potentially have decent fan bases (by that I mean average crowds between 5 and 15,000). But multiple divisions completely fucks up the idea of equalisation. You can't have the best kids going to the bottom division clubs, and the idea of salary caps is terrible, you'd end up with the big clubs getting relegated - which might be funny, but it's bad for the league. There would also need to be uninhibited free agency, otherwise the superstars end up getting locked into playing in the 2nd division.

There is a problem in that there is such a huge gulf between the AFL and the next best league - and that's simply due to there being so many teams in the 2nd tier. The next best 2-300 football players in the country are spread between VFL, WAFL, SANFL, even QAFL and TFL clubs. IMO, the only potentially viable option to combat that is a 2nd tier without promotion and relegation. But without that incentive of promotion to the AFL, it's going to struggle to get a lot of supporter interest.

[beastjim]

You would have to attract a certain type of crowd. Perhaps we could follow America and target Universities, set up a league with Uni's.

[deejaybee]

This should have been done in the eighties, and would have avoided a lot of problems and probably made more cash.

Put all of the top-level state teams (eg: VFL, SANFL, WAFL, TFL, etc) into a hat.
Create one/two national divisions with a sustainable amount of teams.
Then the next step down would be to have the pre-existing statewide competitions, and establish sub-divisions and proper promotion/relegation systems.
Stage play-offs for the state champions for promotion to national league, while relegated clubs go back to their affilated state league systems. This would have effects on how many div 2 state teams get promoted to the state league (obviously there will be one less promotion spot in say the WAFL if West Perth got relegated from the national league.
Develop a clear player conduct code.
Clubs have reserve and under 18 teams. No need for a draft because half the recruiting is done at the end of junoir level (under 16's).



I can think of endless amounts of fiasco this would have solved. Mergers, Port Adelaide, Proxy teams...

[Spirit of Santos]

I don't know why you proposing something you obviously know nothing about .

If there were more AFL teams then the obvious way to go would be play each other once .
Even now it makes sence to have conferences where you play your conference twice and the other once .

.

lol, yeah playing eachother once is the "obvious" solution, perhaps to the bogan mind.

I disagree with the conference system on principle. In the NRL it seems like an evil we won't ever be able to escape.

For all the reasons I outlined I think the AFL is the only competition in Australia that can grow into being something decent and respectable. To not explore this possibility would be an awful crime.

All that is needed for boganism to triumph is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke.

[Nines]

I don't know why you proposing something you obviously know nothing about .

If there were more AFL teams then the obvious way to go would be play each other once .
Even now it makes sence to have conferences where you play your conference twice and the other once .

.

playing each other once is the "obvious" solution, perhaps to the bogan mind.

Breaking a viable league into first and second division seems to be a recipe for disaster for half of the established teams .
Anybody can see that .

I have no problem with the NRL system and don't see any .

.

[Spirit of Santos]

Good piece in Crikey.

The Aussie Rules football innovation that should, but never will, happen
August 30, 2011 – 3:04 pm, by Crikey

Patrick Devery writes:

Season 2011 has been a stinker. Too many games have been woefully one-sided; only one team can win the premiership; four others have performed admirably; and you can forget the rest.

This trend is not only alarming, it is becoming institutional because divisions have opened between footy’s haves and have-nots that will never be bridged, regardless of AFL policy.

The problem is two-fold.

One, while the salary cap applies to on-field staff, no limit is placed on off-field spending. Well-off clubs are free to bolster their coaching, fitness and administrative staff while the others struggle.

I don’t believe regulation should be introduced to cap off-field spending but, increasingly, the well resourced clubs will dominate the competition.

Which brings me to the second prong of the AFL’s problem — one entirely of its own making.

Next year, the 18th club will be introduced into the competition. That means there will be 828 players, senior and rookie-listed, on club lists; 828 footballers being paid to play at the highest level.

That number is far too high.

The most noticeable outcome from the AFL’s almost evangelical desire to expand — one that will become its legacy — is the thinning out of talent. Too many average footballers are playing at the highest level.

In this environment, rather than levelling the playing field, the draft and salary cap only serve to heighten to divisions between the clubs in regard to off-field spending. When the talent is threadbare to begin with, the operational side of football clubs — the facilities, medical staff and expenditure, coaching infrastructure etc — becomes ever more important.

Port Adelaide, for example, will always struggle to develop and retain playing talent because the club has become a basket case. Draft concessions, AFL bail-outs and the salary cap can’t change that.

Aside from adopting a European soccer-style divisional system, featuring relegation and promotion (a system that will do nothing to redress the imbalance at club level in my opinion), there is only one course open to the AFL that would maintain the integrity of the competition.

That is to reduce the number of teams.

Imagine, just for a moment, if the Australian Football League consisted of 10 teams. One each in Queensland, New South Wales, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania. Victoria (still the lifeblood of the sport) would have five teams: three in Melbourne; one coastal (call it Geelong if you like); and one central Victoria (based in Ballarat).

Each team would play the other twice in a season, once at home and once away. The ridiculous inequities of the current draw would be done away with.

If the current list sizes remained, that would mean 460 players would be featured in the sport’s elite competition – almost half of the number that will be running around in 2012. Resources would be channelled into just 10 clubs, not 18. Off-field spend amounts would be radically equalised with less clubs fighting for the same resources. Equally as important, a super-club in Adelaide, Perth or Launceston (or Hobart if you are a Cascade drinker) would be just as attractive to young footballers as one of the Melbourne clubs because of the equalisation of resources and facilities.

There would be 18 rounds of fierce home-and-away competition from teams (at least in theory) on very level footings in terms of talent. Finals football would feature the four, five or six teams (depending on which structure was employed) best performed in this new, streamlined competition. The quality of the football (or ‘brand’ if you are that way inclined) would be outstanding.

The game would have as many bases around Australia as it currently has except for the addition of a permanent team in Tassie. So the “national” aspect of the AFL would be retained, even enhanced.

Would there be problems with such a system? Just off the top of my head try a few of these:

Which clubs would stay and which would go? Think about the fight in WA or SA let alone the bloodbath that ensue in Melbourne if such a system was adopted. And would the reduced club numbers call for mergers, the destruction of some clubs or the creation of new ones? Would any club like to permanently relocate to Tasmania or central Victoria and wave goodbye to Melbourne forever? How many fans would this disenfranchise? (And we know how much disenfranchised fans terrify the AFL.)

Could an 18-round home-and-away competition generate the same revenue from broadcast rights as the current draw? Would the “markets” that football codes prattle on about such as Gold Coast, Western Sydney, North Qld etc be opened up for those rival codes, fracturing the AFL’s fan base in what it sees as growth areas?

Would having just ten teams have a knock on effect on under-age participation with places on an AFL list almost twice as hard to come by?

Despite these issues (and myriad others I have not raised), I believe the 10-team competition has far more pros than cons.

Will it ever happen? Of course not. It is a pipe dream — the AFL has not shelled out countless millions of dollars in south-east Queensland and west Sydney just to pull the number of teams back.

But it’s a nice dream. One that might be worth reflecting on when Collingwood are 100 points up over GWS at half time next season.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/sports/2011/ ... ll-happen/

Maybe he reads Austadiums....

[Boba Fett]

Laughable article.

"Only one team can win the premiership" - is he referring to Collingwood? The team that got thumped by 96 points a bit over a week ago?

"In this environment, rather than levelling the playing field, the draft and salary cap only serve to heighten to divisions between the clubs in regard to off-field spending. When the talent is threadbare to begin with, the operational side of football clubs — the facilities, medical staff and expenditure, coaching infrastructure etc — becomes ever more important." - so what he's saying is that a) the operational side of a club shouldn't be factored in, and b) implicit in this is that if a club has on-field talent it has traditionally covered up poor administration.

Reducing the number of teams would greatly reduce the income for the game. Quite simply the income for the game bears a direct relationship to the number of games played, not the quality. So where is the incentive for this reduction in the number of teams going to come from? Not the broadcasters, not the AFL, none of the current teams would be in favour of it. And really, how many fans would actually vote for it if they thought about it - 'Yes, please give me less football to watch!' No, I didn't think so.

And the argument about the thinning out of the talent pool... I'm not so sure that's correct. Yes, there were some blowout scores this season - mainly involving the Suns. And this will continue next year with the Giants. But I actually quite liked watching the Suns this year. They never stopped trying, it was fascinating watching the team grow and mature throughout the season, and it will be interesting watching the development of that team over the next few years. Ditto for the Giants. The problems with Port Adelaide are rooted in its poor administration - but that's nobody's fault but their own. If anything the AFL has probably erred in not stepping in earlier to sort that mess out.

My guess is that in five years time there won't be any calls for a reduction in teams for any of the reasons outlined in the article. Apart from 'journalists/bloggers' with too much time on their hands...