From: broaj2@cspyr1.cs.adfa.oz.au (BROWN ADRIAN)
Subject: Re: Second WA Team!
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 10:16:59 GMT

dos105@rsphy2.anu.edu.au (Darren O'Shaughnessy) writes:

>   This looks like a rational set-up to me, except for a couple of things:

>    (2) What about Canberra? The city has many Aussie Rules expats, and the
>success of the (Rugby League) Raiders indicates that the people will get
>behind a team. Lack of sponsorship early may be a problem, so how about
>instead of North Melbourne being taken over by Carlton they relocate here?
>   There would then be two "conferences" as the AFL bigwigs seem to want,
>albeit with nine teams each.

	I'm afraid the truth of it is that Ross Oakley and the VFL commissioners
got greedy, and decided that thier competition should be the foundation of
a national competition. I am a Victorian, and I believe this to be the worst
decision made in Australian Football.
	In my humble opinion, what SHOULD have been done was a board of AFL
directors from the WAFL, SANFL and VFL, at the time when the Eagles were being
considered as a new team, and these commisioners should have attempted to 
enhance the strength of each of their respective competitions, even to the 
extent that the VFL SUBSIDISED the other competitions, and KEPT THEIR HANDS OFF
players from WA and SA. (Other states are a free for all, of course :)).
	Eventually, when the time was right, the three competitions would play
off in an interstate finals series, after their Grand Finals. (The season could
be shortened to say 20 games, to facilitate this move, due to the reduced size
of the individual state competitions). They could take the following shape:

Winner of VFL: Essendon
Runner up    : Collingwood

Winner of SANFL: Glenelg
Runner up      : Eagles

Winner of WAFL: East Fremantle
Runner up     : Subiaco

INTERSTATE FINALS SERIES

GAME 1: Essendon v. Eagles at the MCG

GAME 2: East Fremantle v. Collingwood at the WACA

GAME 3: Glenelg v. Subiaco at Football Park

GAME 4: Winner of 1. v. Winner of 2. at the home state ground of winner by 
				       greater margin.

GAME 5: Winner of 2. v. Winner of 3. at (as 4.)

GAME 6. Winner of 1. v. Winner of 3. at (as 4. and 5.)

GAME 7. National Grand Final
	TOp performer (in terms of games won, and then percentage) of games
	4., 5. and 6. v. Second top performer.

	This national finals series should bring in immense revenue for the
controlling board of AFL directors, and they would concentrate their funds to
the betterment of football. :)

Any suggestions for improvements, comments? Ross, is it too late?

=======================================================================
  ^     ^     o		The Brown Dog.
 / \ ^ / \   o       broaj2@cspyr1.cs.adfa.oz.au 
 \ () () /  o        
 `\  ^  /' o      "and I'm thinking about mortality ...		    
   \ U /  o    I'm thinking it's a cheap price we pay for existence .."	
   +\ /+ o            
     Yooo /                            - Bob Geldof,  
    ( \  ( \                   Voyager 2 type things ... 
======================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.australian