Jump to content


Photo

New Teams


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Conway

Conway

    Arthur 'Nance' Williams

  • Members
  • 26 posts
  • Location:Brisbane

Posted 31 July 2009 - 09:54 PM

What do people think of the new teams to join the league?

I think Western Sydney is the worst idea since changing Footscray's name! The Swans have one of the lowest memberships in the AFL, how do they expect a second Sydney team to get anywhere near the Swans members? I am sure a decent percent of the Swans members are ex-South Melbourne fans? I couldn't imagine this team getting 10,000 members. Terrible place for a new team. Tasmania or North Qld would have been better.

The Gold Coast is a good idea, but I was really hoping Southport would get the license. I am sure a well establised, successful team with a large existing membership base would do better then a brand new team with no tradition, membership, player etc. Much like Port Adelaide.

I used to live in Southport and they are pretty popular, the club restaurant/bar is really nice. We used to go there for lunch every Friday.

#2 Caveman

Caveman

    Arthur Olliver

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 802 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Niddrie

Posted 04 August 2009 - 01:21 AM

Yes Western Sydney- it is all about their large population- for the interest they have in 'AFL' er Aussie Rules Football- with the population argument you may as well start a new team in Tokyo or Mumbai :rolleyes:

I see the argument of two teams in Sydney- but their not keen enough at present- bit like raising Canada, Scotland, Ireland or Holland to Cricket Test match status when their not ready for it- AT THIS POINT(they may eventually get there.)

#3 Lisbon

Lisbon

    Joe Marmo

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 203 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lisbon, Portugal

Posted 07 August 2009 - 07:10 AM

I'd say that the AFL is the exact opposite of the American sports leagues. In the US the cities court the leagues and go out of their way to win or to retain a "franchise", paying through the nose to greedy owners if necessary. The AFL, on the other hand, selects the area where it wants to "expand" to and turns a deaf ear to everyone else, even if, like Tasmania, they present a creditable plan, can boast 130 years of footy history and seem to have sound financial backing.

#4 Lisbon

Lisbon

    Joe Marmo

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 203 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lisbon, Portugal

Posted 08 August 2009 - 04:54 AM

Just reread my previous post and realised that I didn't really write what I wanted to write (that's what you get for posting at 10 pm after a day's work). My main point was that it seems that in the US cities court leagues and in Australia the AFL courts cities. At first sight an enthusiastically supported Tasmanian side would seem to have a better chance of success than a West Sydney club dreamt up by the AFL. But the AFL, in all its wisdom, knows better...

#5 Conway

Conway

    Arthur 'Nance' Williams

  • Members
  • 26 posts
  • Location:Brisbane

Posted 14 August 2009 - 02:10 PM

Couldn't agree more. Even the NT or NQ would be better supported!

If it goes ahead, I reckon we could see the first team since University fold! I couldn't imagine they will have enough attendance or membership to last 5-10 years. I am sure the AFL will financial support them for a few years claiming 'all new teams need time to get established'....

What a joke, I reckon a new Melbourne club would do better! Better yet, un-merge Brisbane Lions and you guys can have Fitzroy back!

#6 Caveman

Caveman

    Arthur Olliver

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 802 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Niddrie

Posted 17 August 2009 - 09:27 PM

Couldn't agree more. Even the NT or NQ would be better supported!

If it goes ahead, I reckon we could see the first team since University fold! I couldn't imagine they will have enough attendance or membership to last 5-10 years. I am sure the AFL will financial support them for a few years claiming 'all new teams need time to get established'....

What a joke, I reckon a new Melbourne club would do better! Better yet, un-merge Brisbane Lions and you guys can have Fitzroy back!



I will second that- I would love the return of Fitzroy. The competition is unquestionably worse off without them.

#7 Amelia Jane

Amelia Jane

    Vernon Banbury

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 237 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Ted Whitten Stand

Posted 08 January 2011 - 09:48 AM

Couldn't agree more. Even the NT or NQ would be better supported!

If it goes ahead, I reckon we could see the first team since University fold! I couldn't imagine they will have enough attendance or membership to last 5-10 years. I am sure the AFL will financial support them for a few years claiming 'all new teams need time to get established'....

What a joke, I reckon a new Melbourne club would do better! Better yet, un-merge Brisbane Lions and you guys can have Fitzroy back!



Western Sydney- that is mission impossible.

#8 Caveman

Caveman

    Arthur Olliver

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 802 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Niddrie

Posted 07 August 2011 - 02:12 PM

I wonder if the next team to join- (the club that will also have Western in its name) will be able to get closer than a 150 point defeat at Kardinia Park in 2012?

Geelong the only Victorian club with a genuine home ground advatage. It is paying massive dividends for them- financially as well as preformance wise.

We should have spent Prime Minister Johnny Howards big $$ gift for redeveloping the Whitten Oval in a manner that made it possible to make it play games matches. Five to seven games at home- all non-Victorian teams in a 35,000 capacity stadium would have been sufficient and given us probably five wins and no money surrendered hand over fist to Ian Collins Stadium as we continue to endure.

#9 Lisbon

Lisbon

    Joe Marmo

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 203 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lisbon, Portugal

Posted 24 August 2011 - 07:38 AM

We should have spent Prime Minister Johnny Howards big $$ gift for redeveloping the Whitten Oval in a manner that made it possible to make it play games matches. Five to seven games at home- all non-Victorian teams in a 35,000 capacity stadium would have been sufficient and given us probably five wins and no money surrendered hand over fist to Ian Collins Stadium as we continue to endure.


That is something that I never understood. Why redevelop the stands if you don't mean to play any league games there. Even if they couldn't fit 35,000 there, I'm sure that it would be tougher for other teams to play before 25,000 in the Whitten Oval than before a full house at Etihad.
With it's cover and perfect playing field Etihad doesn't seem to provide any significant home advantage. The Whitten Oval would be foreign, hostile territory to any visitor in a way that Etihad will never be.

#10 Caveman

Caveman

    Arthur Olliver

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 802 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Niddrie

Posted 28 August 2011 - 08:45 PM

We are just another lodger at Etihad- like all the others that play there.

All we get out of the place is writing cheques instead of receiving them like Geelong do.

You might get one final there (the first week of the four) as St Kilda will should they defeat Carlton next Saturday night at the MCG.

Yesterday was our 2nd game on the MCG for the 2011 season. Both of these matches were designated away games.

Gnawth played just one fixture on the MCG this year- they kicked 3 goals in that game. So people can make mention in the future at trivia nights and the like how Gnawth Melbourne kicked the sum total of 3 goals on the MCG during 2011.

That must be a record of some sorts- it would go back to before World War one, I suppose?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users