West Sydney & Gold Coast

[Ian4]

This is why the Kangas and Melbourne or the Bulldogs must relocate. It gives the new regions a team that already has a reasonably mature list of players and the player swap then works the other way. Any Kangaroos or whatever players who want to stay in Melb can go to another club and the new club gets priority picks to compensate. It is much more orderly.

If the 18 clubs option goes ahead, the AFL will rape and pillage the ten Melbourne teams and a New Dark Age will begin. We will be waiting for another thirty years.

we have to look at this from a RICHMOND perspective and a RICHMOND perspective ONLY. i totally agree with TOT70. if we are gonna have a team on the gold coast and west sydney, they have to be relocated melbourne teams. i dont care who they are, as long as they are not richmond. this will leave 8 teams in victoria and less teams to compete against in regards to supporters, members and corporate support. an 8/8 ratio sounds about right in a national competition.

2 brand new franchises is not feasable. not only would it make the draw even less favourable, the new teams will most likely be given the right to pillage established players from us, plus gain access to priority picks. it will also make it harder than what it already is for us to be competitive, let alone win a flag. make no bones about it ladies and gents, the AFL will do everything in it's power to ensure the new clubs have some early success to ensure the local supporters jump onboard early. and if you don't agree with that, you're deslusional...

if this ever goes to a vote, as a 13 year member of the RFC, i will want my club to vote no. and i will be informaing the RFC of this personally... my views on this are very, very strong. from what i understand, 2/3 of the clubs must vote yes to agree to any new licence to join the league. That is 11 out of 16 clubs. we only need 6 to vote no. richmond should be one...

if demetriou seriously goes through with his agenda, i hope there is a revolt at club and commission level and they call for his head... as what mike sheahan said in his hun article... lets hope he's bluffing and 2 other melb teams put their hand up.

 

[Streak]

1. Sydney and Brisbane both won premierships

And neither of them posted big profits when they did it. I seem to recall hearing that Sydney made a profit of just $200,000 when they won the flag. You have to wonder what sort of market actually exists in these states, and what the real financial burden involved on the competition is likely to be.

 

[johnson2richo2003]

Interesting interview with Micheal Bowers on KB,s show suggested we do the following in regards to the drafting process of the 2 new clubs:
*Have the new Gold Coast club participate in this years Draft.
*What order in the Draft should be done by Lotto with numbers 1-17.If the ball is #4 they get draft pick 4 then as per the draft order.
*Kids selected to stay with their current side[WA.SA & QLD] until the new team is up and running.Im not sure what they do with kids from Vic.Allocate them to stand alone clubs in the VFL is probally the best option.
*The new club can "auction" those kids selected to any club for more established players.

*The new Sydney side to have the same as above in the 2009 draft.
*After 2009 both new clubs will do the same in regards to what draft position until they are in the comp.

 

[ToraToraTora]

Whoever finishes bottom this year is a very good chance to lose their No1 pick or more to the West Sydney Westies/ Gold Coast Invasion.

 

[Liverpool]

All this West Sydney/Gold Coast stuff is simply Demetriou trying to enforce is legacy on the game....so in 20 years time, he can sit back and say "I did this".
It is simply an egotistical decision.

The problem is, Sydney isn't a 'natural' sporting city....their main sport is rugby which they hardly ever sell out games with and the Swans have at times struggled to pack the stadium as well unless they are up against a Magpies/Blues/Tigers/Bombers team and get a lot of these ex-pat supporters going to their one-game per season.
Footy in West Sydney?
Yeah right!

As for the Gold Coast...again, rugby is their game and already have a team established there.
Add the new Gold Coast team for the A-League and I can't see footy (apart from ex-pats living up there or supporters from down here travelling to their one-game/one-holiday per year effort) packing the stadium out either.

And don't get me started on the 'global push'...the biggest waste of time, money, and resources in the game today.

 

[IanG]

2 brand new franchises is not feasable. not only would it make the draw even less favourable, the new teams will most likely be given the right to pillage established players from us, plus gain access to priority picks. it will also make it harder than what it already is for us to be competitive, let alone win a flag. make no bones about it ladies and gents, the AFL will do everything in it's power to ensure the new clubs have some early success to ensure the local supporters jump onboard early. and if you don't agree with that, you're deslusional...

Gerard Neesham was on SEN yesterday and said that it is extremely hard to get an entirely new club off the ground, and he did it with Fremantle in an AFL state. Imagine how much harder it will be to do it in NSW and QLD.

if this ever goes to a vote, as a 13 year member of the RFC, i will want my club to vote no. and i will be informaing the RFC of this personally... my views on this are very, very strong. from what i understand, 2/3 of the clubs must vote yes to agree to any new licence to join the league. That is 11 out of 16 clubs. we only need 6 to vote no. richmond should be one...

It needs 75% which is 12 clubs.

 

[Tigers of Old]

The problem is, Sydney isn't a 'natural' sporting city....their main sport is rugby which they hardly ever sell out games with and the Swans have at times struggled to pack the stadium as well unless they are up against a Magpies/Blues/Tigers/Bombers team and get a lot of these ex-pat supporters going to their one-game per season.
Footy in West Sydney?
Yeah right!

Disagree Livers. Correct move this one by *smile*.

I do agree Sydney may not be a natural sporting city but it is currently the biggest.
IMO it can support two AFL sides and will be a success in time.

I'm assuming the AFL plans to develop a new sporting arena out Liverpool way, which will expose the game to a market that finds little connection with a Swans team that plays live on the other side of the city. Most folks in the West don't venture out the SCG way for their holidays.

Soon enough those in the West of Sydney will get to enjoy our great game and will soon see Thugby League shown for the primitive game that it is.

It won't happen overnight but it will happen.

 

[tigerlee]

IMO Sydney may do okay but the Gold Coast idea is not that bright. They have tried that and it didnt work. When I lived up there they tried the Bears on the Gold Coast and most games attracted minimum crowds and no atmosphere - more like a local footy match than top level. I went to a Tiger game there and they would have been lucky to have 3000 at the game.

Didnt the Brissy team move to Brissy because the Gold Coast was killing them financially and the supporters were just not there?

Understandable really - the Gold Coast has a very transient population and that means that if your lucky you may get a few holiday makers going along if they are there when their team plays but I cant see it doing any good at all. Too many people without jobs on the Coast so not much chance of them having spare cash to get to a game or buy a membership!

They would need to upgrade Cararra Stadium a great deal if they want if to work - but then again, that is not located anywhere close so not sure who they expect to go watch those games? Not the locals I wouldnt think.

I hope that the Tigers dont put their hands up for Gold Coast ever as it would not work in my opinion and I would not be happy if we folded as a result! In fact, I may just kick vlaad fair square in the guts if that was to happen :

Make melbourne or the Roos go - after all, the Roos are going one way or another so it may as well be as a team to the Gold Coast!

 

[Liverpool]

Disagree Livers. Correct move this one by *smile*.
I do agree Sydney may not be a natural sporting city but it is currently the biggest.
IMO it can support two AFL sides and will be a success in time.
I'm assuming the AFL plans to develop a new sporting arena out Liverpool way, which will expose the game to a market that finds little connection with a Swans team that plays live on the other side of the city. Most folks in the West don't venture out the SCG way for their holidays.
Soon enough those in the West of Sydney will get to enjoy our great game and will soon see Thugby League shown for the primitive game that it is.
It won't happen overnight but it will happen.

We'll see....but Wests (rugby league) joined with Balmain for a reason....and the Razorbacks in the NBL haven't got a lot of support either and have financial problems too.

Just because an area is growing doesn't mean that people in those areas will start supporting a team from there.

Look how many Tiger people on this very forum support Richmond and don't come from there and have never lived there, but live in "growth areas" of Melbourne.
If an AFL club started in Melton, Sunbury, Epping, or Pakenham...the "growth" areas of Melbourne, would these Tiger people and their families follow the new team? or still follow the Tigers?

Aussie Rules is a southern-states code and that is it....all the other stuff like Brisbane, Sydney, Gold Coast....is just the AFL trying to force the expansion of a game that is very territorial.
They would be better off starting a permanent team in Tassie and leave the Swans to have Sydney on their own because they will struggle once they dip in form and not make finals and will need the WHOLE city behind them (similar to Brisbane).
Remember, Brisbane left the Gold Coast originally for a reason too.