cookie76

Mar 19 2007, 08:13 AM

Gibbke your talk about 'derbys' and second teams coming from the two biggest cities is to use your own words shortsighted.

Now lets look at the situation in the AFL. Give me one so called Derby that really gets the 'juices' flowing? Port v Crows is probably the closest there is and its amazing that its outside the cultural heartland of the code... Melb!!!! The simple fact is that its the media that creates the hype around so called Derbys in AFL and most if not all supporters couldnt care less. Each as their pet team that they hate. AFL supporters can carry on aboout Anzac day etc but its not a derby and never will be. At this point I would also like to add that th A league once second teams do come to Melb and Syd will not be derby games in anyway in the same vein as England for the same reasons as the AFL. Sure it will be great ot have the bragging rights but the passionate fever of the game as illustrated in England will never be there.

Now onto the apparent shortsightedness of the one team per town situation. This is a short to medium term limit and is in fact a master stroke of administrational planning. As you correctly identify, the two largest cities naturally have the biggest markets to support additional teams. However, by introducing teams in the same towns so quickly would result in economic disadvantage to one of not both of the sides. Taking Melb for an example, lets say the 8th franchise went to a second team based in Melb. By your logic the support for a second team is there due to Victory's numbers and the size of the Melb market. Howeverm the support base for the new team would born out of one of these two scenarios:
1) comprise new AND some existing fans of the Victory.
2) New support only but in small numbers dues to allegiance to Victory by their supporters

Either way, one of the teams would be at a financial disadvantage. The NSL apart from its ethnic problems showed this ppoint quite clearly.

The second element that is just as but prob more important is the spreading of the game to new markets. The AFL would give its left nut to get another team in QLD (especially in FNQ) why? because it means exposure to new markets.

Lagina

Mar 18 2007, 01:40 AM

Gibbke

Mar 17 2007, 12:06 PM

A second Sydney side, and a second Melbourne side - both right on the doorstep of their namesakes and fighting for their city's love...derbies are the biggest game on any draw of any sporting competition anywhere in the world, and the A-League doesn't have any - if they really want to get people interested, they'll make it happen ASAP and not wait until the sides that got there first get too established and powerful...

Then you can start worrying about areas that don't have the ethnic populations to kickstart a new A-League team - let's not be naive here people, there's a few reasons why Adelaide, Sydney and Melbourne rule the roost, and the demographics of the supporter base is one of the most important.  A single successful Cowboys NRL side is a bigger obstacle to the establishment of a successful Townsville soccer team than the entire AFL is to Melbourne...think about it...

I'm not overly certain... But I think Victory and SydneyFC have the sole licence to their respective cities...
Just has one city following one team... no racial divides..

So yeah, it cuts out local derbies (to an extent)...But atleast we aren't makign thsaem mistakes we did in the NSL days



And your point in bold is valid...
It's something I'd be worried about...
I'd put "T'ville & the Cowboys" on parr with "AFL in melbourne" - where do you see the difference??

EDIT - EXCUSE MY TYPO'S ... i'M IRISH :D
EDITii - Well I'm not really - Today I am :D

mitchd

Mar 19 2007, 05:02 PM

Gibbke

Mar 18 2007, 10:21 AM

Everyone's Irish this weekend, and cricket has just become their national sport...!

I think Townsville's preoccupation is with the NRL, just like Melbourne's is with the AFL.  But Townsville wouldn't then have many thousands who would still back a soccer team, unlike Melbourne who do.  The AFL could dominate Australian winter sport even more than they do, and you could still get 50 000 regularly to the Victory games because those fans aren't AFL followers anyway - they live and breathe soccer regardless. But Townsville hasn't got that in sufficient numbers, so they will always be a bit on the token side...their basketballers have succeeded before, but basketball is a different story again...

I'm dumbfounded if that sole city licence scenario is true - stupid and short-sighted, and guaranteed to create haves and have-nots...if they ever brought in promotion and relegation, then you guys might as well join us here in AFL-land, because you won't have a competition worth following...

And I wasn't implying racial divides, although I can see that's how it could end up, simply because it would only take, for example, a perceived dominance of Serbs, Greeks, whatever, to respectively get Croats and Macedonians going to the other side in droves, where it then becomes visible...NSL did its best, but the growing pains have been difficult and costly...but the neighbours you hate the most are the ones over the back fence or across the road, not a suburb away, and that's why they should make this happen...god, even I, the Tasmanian (therefore non-aligned) Aussie Rules follower, would tune in if I knew "it was ON" in Melbourne or Sydney...Townsville v Brisbane just doesn't have the same ring to it (the NRL's a bit different, because we know NQ is fanatical about league)...

mate, that statement is rubbish... they had the 2nd lowest average crowds in australia in season one. success brings crowds.


I dont think that townsville vs roar would really be a derby... wouldnt be much passion behind it really. The real aussie derby is Sydney vs Melbourne, and if another melbourne team was to develope that would be the other real derby.


On the other points... i think its only a matter of time before townsville get a team, it may even be next season... i hope we get townsville and canberra in soon... 2 sick away trips for me :P

Gibbke

Mar 19 2007, 05:51 PM

cookie76

Mar 19 2007, 08:13 AM

Gibbke your talk about 'derbys' and second teams coming from the two biggest cities is to use your own words shortsighted.

Now lets look at the situation in the AFL. Give me one so called Derby that really gets the 'juices' flowing? Port v Crows is probably the closest there is and its amazing that its outside the cultural heartland of the code... Melb!!!! The simple fact is that its the media that creates the hype around so called Derbys in AFL and most if not all supporters couldnt care less. Each as their pet team that they hate. AFL supporters can carry on aboout Anzac day etc but its not a derby and never will be. At this point I would also like to add that th A league once second teams do come to Melb and Syd will not be derby games in anyway in the same vein as England for the same reasons as the AFL. Sure it will be great ot have the bragging rights but the passionate fever of the game as illustrated in England will never be there.

Now onto the apparent shortsightedness of the one team per town situation. This is a short to medium term limit and is in fact a master stroke of administrational planning. As you correctly identify, the two largest cities naturally have the biggest markets to support additional teams. However, by introducing teams in the same towns so quickly would result in economic disadvantage to one of not both of the sides. Taking Melb for an example, lets say the 8th franchise went to a second team based in Melb. By your logic the support for a second team is there due to Victory's numbers and the size of the Melb market. Howeverm the support base for the new team would born out of one of these two scenarios:
1) comprise new AND some existing fans of the Victory.
2) New support only but in small numbers dues to allegiance to Victory by their supporters

Either way, one of the teams would be at a financial disadvantage. The NSL apart from its ethnic problems showed this ppoint quite clearly.

The second element that is just as but prob more important is the spreading of the game to new markets. The AFL would give its left nut to get another team in QLD (especially in FNQ) why? because it means exposure to new markets.

You're trying to counter an argument by using semantics - the "derby" for example. That's the next argumentative desperation level after insults...and you haven't researched any of your AFL allegations...

First of all, the 3-way matchups of Carlton v Collingwood v Essendon, West Coast v Freo and Port v Adelaide are clear examples of Australia's version of the derby. Anzac day isn't big because it's Anzac Day - it's big because it's the Magpies and the Bombers. 110 years of unfinished grudges. Check the attendances since 1995, when it first started. What's England got to do with it, apart from contributing the name? Close-town rivals are the best matchups anywhere and everywhere, in any sport - a hate your neighbour complex. The crowds are always full houses in the cases of the SA-WA games, even the preseason games (get onto AFL.com and check the match details for this year), and are also rooted in traditions and attitudes and demographics just like their soccer equivalents. The supporters most certainly COULD care less, and you're showing an ignorance by dismissing South Australian footy passion. Granted they won't be as fanatical as a centuries-old Catholic v Protestant matchups for the best off-field intensity (remembering that the players themselves couldn't care these days because they aren't even from the area anymore...), but they are still very legitimate because they translate directly into marketable full-house ticket and tv rights selling action. Research your knowledge of SANFL and VFL footy before you start dismissing those "derbies", and then have a casual read over the popularity of the 2 WA sides...

You talk of economic disadvantage. Melbourne could support 2 teams, and everyone knows it. Who said they had to align with cultural groups? Throw them in and let them sort it out - that's exactly what the A-League is designed around anyway, because it abandons all of those problematic historical ties - a new beginning. There's no way I'd attribute "master planning" to a competition that's just seen one of its "masterly planned" franchises go under only 2 years later - how the f### do you let that happen if you are so apparently far sighted in the first place? Looks like a bit of fishing to me - "didn't work there, how about here...?" The 4 WA-SA AFL teams are clear examples of 2 teams profitably sharing a resource. Can anyone tell me how a population centre with half a million people and one team is expected to match a 4-5 million city with one as well. If two Melbourne or 2 Sydney teams are unprofitable, then every other team in the A-League is as well by that logic - all of them have to fight against established codes, but only the two big cities have those soccer core fans to utilise if they wanted more than one side, and those two have them in droves...

Your SE Qld AFL point - there's a very good reason why they don't have a second team - they couldn't support it. On the way, but not yet. Exactly the same reason I'd say nix to a new AFL side from Darwin, Tasmania, Gold Coast, Townsville, Canberra...and exactly the same reason I wonder at the logic of the same teams being mentioned for A-League expansion. Believe it or not, the best places for a 17th or 18th AFL side is Adelaide or Perth - they'd reject it immediately, because they are totally happy with their little cash cow, but only they would make it work with less pain than any new side would have to go through in overcrowded Melbourne, or not-strong-enough anywhere-else...

You go to where the demographic is - soccer fans. Sure, Melbourne had low attendances in the first season. But the second were substantially bigger. The fans know the A-League is worth supporting. Watch it get bigger. I might exaggerate with 50 000 "every game" (won't see that when doomed to fail Wellington shows us the pointlessness of its promotion), but I'm certainly not when I say Melbourne v Sydney or Melbourne v the other Melbourne side...

Soccer isn't wrestling, any way you want to look at it...

CK7

Mar 20 2007, 12:55 PM

Back on topic... Wellington have been given the licence... not sure if anyone has mentioned it before...

Davo-27

Mar 20 2007, 11:24 AM

mitchd

Mar 19 2007, 05:02 PM

Gibbke

Mar 18 2007, 10:21 AM

Everyone's Irish this weekend, and cricket has just become their national sport...!

I think Townsville's preoccupation is with the NRL, just like Melbourne's is with the AFL.  But Townsville wouldn't then have many thousands who would still back a soccer team, unlike Melbourne who do.  The AFL could dominate Australian winter sport even more than they do, and you could still get 50 000 regularly to the Victory games because those fans aren't AFL followers anyway - they live and breathe soccer regardless. But Townsville hasn't got that in sufficient numbers, so they will always be a bit on the token side...their basketballers have succeeded before, but basketball is a different story again...

I'm dumbfounded if that sole city licence scenario is true - stupid and short-sighted, and guaranteed to create haves and have-nots...if they ever brought in promotion and relegation, then you guys might as well join us here in AFL-land, because you won't have a competition worth following...

And I wasn't implying racial divides, although I can see that's how it could end up, simply because it would only take, for example, a perceived dominance of Serbs, Greeks, whatever, to respectively get Croats and Macedonians going to the other side in droves, where it then becomes visible...NSL did its best, but the growing pains have been difficult and costly...but the neighbours you hate the most are the ones over the back fence or across the road, not a suburb away, and that's why they should make this happen...god, even I, the Tasmanian (therefore non-aligned) Aussie Rules follower, would tune in if I knew "it was ON" in Melbourne or Sydney...Townsville v Brisbane just doesn't have the same ring to it (the NRL's a bit different, because we know NQ is fanatical about league)...

mate, that statement is rubbish... they had the 2nd lowest average crowds in australia in season one. success brings crowds.


I dont think that townsville vs roar would really be a derby... wouldnt be much passion behind it really. The real aussie derby is Sydney vs Melbourne, and if another melbourne team was to develope that would be the other real derby.


On the other points... i think its only a matter of time before townsville get a team, it may even be next season... i hope we get townsville and canberra in soon... 2 sick away trips for me :P

you're a kcid, we were only behind sydneyfc and the roar in our first year because we had a small stadium to begin with, i actually was locked out of a few games in our first year along with thousands of others so there goes your dumb-arsed theory.............

cookie76

Mar 20 2007, 12:28 PM

Listen mate......(all the way through to)... I apprciate that this is hard for an AFL fan to conprehend as haphazard and half assed management is the norm in AFL business circles.

Gibbke

Mar 20 2007, 07:45 PM

cookie76

Mar 20 2007, 12:28 PM

Listen mate......(all the way through to)... I apprciate that this is hard for an AFL fan to conprehend as haphazard and half assed management is the norm in AFL business circles.

:blink:

Wow.....that was crap....

I'll respond to one comment only - the one below - because the rest of your article is bullshit. I feel dumber for having read it...your uni economics lecturers must be so proud...

Demetriou and co didn't tell Hawthorn, Footscray, Melbourne or the Kangas to sell home games - they just approved plans made by the clubs.

Far too many ways to counter allegations of AFL mismanagement, but you could sum the lot up with a magic number which proves they must be doing something right, and is only slightly higher than the first one a few years ago proving we aren't talking flukes - 780 million....a figure no code in Australia can match, and a figure that sure as hell wasn't there in any fiscal scenario you can name before those in the VFL-AFL leadership started putting their "haphazard" plans in place 2 decades ago...

In any case, the rest of it...who's a self-righteous know-it-all? Where are your credentials, bud? How do I know you're not a fellow knuckledragger...? Sure as hell isn't disputed in your inability to baffle with bullshit...that's a highly cultured art-form, my friend...keep practicing...

Gibbke

Mar 21 2007, 06:26 PM

1) I'm not angry. Be me for a day, and you'll see why...you're not worth my anger...I'm here to relax...
2) This topic is apparently about A-League expansion...I've used my AFL examples to support my statements, or to directly challenge what you've brought up simply because you've got it wrong. If you didn't immediately ring a bell with 780 million, then clearly you don't understand the topic anywhere near as much as you think you do - it's the single most significant figure in sports promotion and tv rights in the country at the moment, and every sporting comp is well aware of it, because they all have to work around it...
3) 780 billion, no matter how you look at it, is f###ing huge money in Australia to sell tv rights (yes, I'm well aware than Man U and many other single clubs sell for more, but the A-League has more in common with the AFL than it ever will to these teams outside of the fact they all play soccer, simply because they are Australian in an Australian market, so there wouldn't be any point in bringing them up)...didn't say anything about it being the best managed, but you don't sell products for consecutive half-3/4 billion dollar sums unless it's been built up to be worth either the price or the bidding battle...this was light years from the scenario of 15-20 years ago when the near bankrupt VFL embarked on its new expansion plan...many great things constructed, many mistakes made, many people and groups turned into enemies, and much interest created along with new fans...plusses and minuses...what's drug policy got to do with it? Not brilliantly handled, but not only does the AFL have the right to challenge what it doesn't think works for them (whether we like it or not, Howard has every right to challenge Kyoto), but they have many more situations under the belt they've handled very well...they won an international award for their racism policies...I wouldn't for a second be trumpeting AFL administrative mistakes when you do a quick review of Australian soccer. What did you call the NZ team...an "investment franchise"...? I call it a f###up, but unlike you, I'm a bit more forgiving when sporting organisations who are otherwise on a winner (both the AFL and the A-League) make the odd error in judgment...and
4) In any case, back to the topic, I'll sum up - I think the A-League is on a loser with expansion as they call it. NZ will offer nothing, and the big cities are where it's at for reasons already stated...