From: tom@cs.su.oz.au (Thomas James Jones)
Subject: Re: future of AFL
Reply-To: tom@cs.su.oz.au
Organization: Basser Department of Computer Science
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 07:57:05 GMT

In article <10764380.23.719204079@eng2.eng.monash.edu.au>, 10764380@eng2.eng.monash.edu.au (ANDREW DOCKERY) writes:

|> 
|> I think that it is high time that everyone considered the feasability of 
|> moving, merging or eliminating clubs from the competition. Let's have a look 
|> at two recent examples:
|> 
|> Footscray/Fitzroy attempted merger:
|> Surely this example shows just how people feel about having their team 
|> either merged or eliminated.
|> Ross Oakley was made to look like a moron ( and deservedly so ). 
|> I went to the Fitzroy/Hawthorn Fosters Cup Grand Final, and you should have 
|> heard all the boos for Ross Oakley when he came up onto the stage after the 
|> match!!!
|> 
|> Anyway, let's move to the second example, which is of course the move that 
|> the South Melbourne Football Club made to Sydney to create the Sydney Swans:
|> Naturally enough South Melbourne supporters complained, but I can't quite 
|> remember how much ( I was only 8 or 9 at the time! ). This club was bought 
|> by Sydney entrepreneur (sp?) Dr. Eddleston (hehe...once again sp?). Now he 
|> had lots of money at the time, and bought a really good side ( this was 
|> before the days of the draft and salary caps ). So of course, Sydney was 
|> successful for the first few years....however, after only 10 years they seem 
|> to be on the verge of extinction because there is simply not enough 
|> supporter base in Sydney ( they're all rugby mad ).
	
	Thanks for the information, but it is simply wrong to 
	say Sydney is rugby mad.  The support for the SOO
	rugby league (a different game to rubgy), is very strong.
	Beyond that, most people care very little about weekly
	rugby league, Swans crowds have always been as good
	as RL crowds, and in their brief 'heyday', threatened
	RL more than you would believe.

	If they AFL had timed this Swans business a bit better (:->),
	then they could have really generated some practical support
	for the Swans.  They have dominated Sydney sport media
	over the past week.

|>	 After their first wooden 
|> spoon since they moved to Sydney, already they look as if they are going to 
|> be removed from the competition. Now if I remember correctly, St. Kilda 
|> spent most of the 1980's on the bottom of the ladder, collecting the most 
|> number of wooden spoons out of any AFL club, and yet it's still alive and 
|> kicking today... The reason is of course that it had the supporter base to 
|> keep it alive during the bad years.
|> 
|> So there you have it...two attempts to merge/eliminate/relocate (MER) teams 
|> and they both failed!
|> 
|> It is clear that it is not feasable to MER teams for the reasons I've given 
|> above, and I would like supporters of the MER strategy to give REASONS why 
|> it should happen. Most people, like the person I've quoted above say that 
|> teams must MER "for the sake of football in general". To me, this is rather 
|> generalised reason and, since I am a Fitzroy supporter, I'm sure you would 
|> understand if I asked those people to give specific reasons.
|> 
|> Here's a few questions to answer:
|> 
|> What is wrong with the AFL having 11 Victorian sides ( or more sides here 
|> than interstate )?
|> 
|> How can the AFL be "truly national" when in Sydney and Brisbane, there is 
|> simply not enough supporter base?
|> 
|> Why "must" small supporter base teams ( though not as small as Sydney or 
|> Brisbane ) such as Fitzroy, North Melbourne and Richmond MER?
|> 

	Richmond do not have a small supporter base.  They were
	the first side ever to have 1 million spectators see them
	in the one season.  You seem to equate unsuccessful with
	small supporter base, and this is not the case.

|> What is so desirable about a "truly national" competition when it is simply 
|> infeasable?

	That is obviously a question of personal opinion.
	However I would see that 
	a)  expand or die seems to be a rule in much of sport
	b)  why ISN'T it desirable that our national game
		be 'truly national'?

|> 
|> Where is the Grand Final played if it is between two interstate sides? ( or 
|> any final for that matter )
|> 
	If two interstate sides are playing in a final then
	under the rules the higher finishing team would have
	the home ground advantage, UNLESS another interstate
	side had finished higher, in which case I do not know
	what would happen.
		The GF should stay at the MCG, unless melbournians
	decide that they will no longer support it....

	tom

|> 
|> Andrew
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.australian