18 teams going ahead

ausfatcat · Post: # 531536Post **ausfatcat** » Thu 13 Mar 2008 5:10pm

According to ch10 all sixteen clubs said yes to 18 teams.

hAyES · Post: # 531537Post **hAyES** » Thu 13 Mar 2008 5:12pm

Sounds ridiculous, but I guess we'd all just get used to it.

Saintschampions08 · Thu 13 Mar 2008 5:29pm

Why not? Most successful competitions have at least 20+ teams.

Generally more teams = More money = More fans = More successful.

bigcarl · Post: # 531541Post **bigcarl** » Thu 13 Mar 2008 5:35pm

Saintschampions08 wrote:Why not? Most successful competitions have at least 20+ teams.

Generally more teams = More money = More fans = More successful.

and less chance of a premiership for your club. once we were one of 12, now we're going to be one of 18

imo if it were put to the members rather than the clubs it would have gotten the heave-ho pretty quickly.

only a small sample, but in the poll on saintsational this week some 80 per cent do not want two more teams.

here is what the passionate st kilda fans think

http://www.saintsational.com/forum/view ... 541#531541

Spinner · Post: # 531546Post **Spinner** » Thu 13 Mar 2008 5:52pm

bigcarl wrote:
Saintschampions08 wrote:Why not? Most successful competitions have at least 20+ teams.

Generally more teams = More money = More fans = More successful.
and less chance of a premiership for your club. once we were one of 12, now we're going to be one of 18

imo if it were put to the fans rather than the clubs it would have got the heave-ho pretty quickly.

only a small sample, but in the poll on saintsational this week some 80 per cent of fans do not want two more teams.

here is what the passionate st kilda fans think

http://www.saintsational.com/forum/view ... 541#531541

Why would fans from already existing club vote to install 2 new franchises?

Thats why the vote isn't in the hands of the public. Pure Logic.

bigcarl · Post: # 531552Post **bigcarl** » Thu 13 Mar 2008 6:02pm

Spinner wrote:Why would fans from already existing club vote to install 2 new franchises? Thats why the vote isn't in the hands of the public. Pure Logic.

The vote is in the hands of the boards of the clubs and let's not forget that these people are elected to represent their membership.

if our small sample poll on saintsational is truly an indication of how the members think (and 80 per cent are, in fact, against admitting new teams) then our board has failed to represent its membership.

disapppointing, but not surprising

Spinner · Post: # 531554Post **Spinner** » Thu 13 Mar 2008 6:05pm

bigcarl wrote:
Spinner wrote:Why would fans from already existing club vote to install 2 new franchises? Thats why the vote isn't in the hands of the public. Pure Logic.
The vote is in the hands of the boards of the clubs and let's not forget that these people are elected to represent their members.

if our small sample poll on saintsational is truly an indication of how the members think (and 80 per cent are, in fact, against admitting new teams) then our board has failed to represent its members.

Well, actually no, they represent the St Kilda Football Club.

,,,If they were there to represent the members of this club, we would be in a lot of trouble.

They have expertise in both business and football like no other...that is what they are there for......

bigcarl · Post: # 531556Post **bigcarl** » Thu 13 Mar 2008 6:08pm

Spinner wrote:Well, actually no, they represent the St Kilda Football Club.

they are elected by the members to represent st kilda football club ... and would do well to remember it.

ausfatcat · Post: # 531559Post **ausfatcat** » Thu 13 Mar 2008 6:10pm

bigcarl wrote:
Spinner wrote:Well, actually no, they represent the St Kilda Football Club.
they are elected by the members to represent st kilda football club ... and would do well to remember it.

And they know the full story but we don't.

Spinner · Post: # 531560Post **Spinner** » Thu 13 Mar 2008 6:10pm

bigcarl wrote:
Spinner wrote:Well, actually no, they represent the St Kilda Football Club.
they are elected by the members to represent st kilda football club ... and would do well to remember it.

I would doubt that most members would know what is best for the St Kilda football club.

...That is why the board makes those types of decisions.

bigcarl · Post: # 531561Post **bigcarl** » Thu 13 Mar 2008 6:13pm

well i, along with 80 per cent of the people who responded to our small poll, think they've pulled the wrong reign on this one.

Spinner · Post: # 531562Post **Spinner** » Thu 13 Mar 2008 6:17pm

bigcarl wrote:well i, along with 80 per cent of the people who responded to our small poll, think they've pulled the wrong reign on this one.

And what makes any of those opinions valid....

What credentials, what experience, what expertise is accompanied by those 'opinions' that make them valid enough for anyone at St Kilda to even listen to them.

Fact is, everyone is entitled to an opinion. But you are in fairy land if you believe everyones opinion is equally as valid.

bigcarl · Post: # 531564Post **bigcarl** » Thu 13 Mar 2008 6:20pm

administrations who don't listen to their memberships tend not to last long as a rule.

imo our club (like all the rest of them) has just rolled over on this one.

Spinner · Post: # 531565Post **Spinner** » Thu 13 Mar 2008 6:22pm

bigcarl wrote:administrations who don't listen to their memberships tend not to last long as a rule.

imo our club has just rolled over on this one

Administration will no doubt listen to their members when they believe they have a valid say in any such matter.

This is a matter that members have no valid opinion in...and rightfully so.

bigcarl · Post: # 531569Post **bigcarl** » Thu 13 Mar 2008 6:23pm

Spinner wrote:This is a matter that members have no valid opinion in...and rightfully so.

there are no issues that members don't have a valid opinion on

Spinner · Post: # 531571Post **Spinner** » Thu 13 Mar 2008 6:24pm

bigcarl wrote:
Spinner wrote:This is a matter that members have no valid opinion in...and rightfully so.
there are no issues that members don't have a valid opinion on

This is an issue that member don't have a valid opinion on.

Explain to me why any member would have a valid opinion on St Kilda's stand on expanding the competition to 18 teams?

bigcarl · Post: # 531572Post **bigcarl** » Thu 13 Mar 2008 6:25pm

Spinner wrote:Explain to me why any member would have a valid opinion on St Kilda's stand on expanding the competition to 18 teams?

because the members elect the boards to represent their views. pure logic.

Spinner · Post: # 531573Post **Spinner** » Thu 13 Mar 2008 6:28pm

bigcarl wrote:
Spinner wrote:Explain to me why any member would have a valid opinion on St Kilda's stand on expanding the competition to 18 teams?
because the members elect the boards to represent their views. pure logic.

No. Members elect board because we are incapable (or not as qualifies) to make these decisions ourselves.

Members don't get consulted on daily decision makings and basic running of the club.

If the board acted in the 'views' of the member each and every time a decision had to be made....we would be in a very stuffed up place as a football club.

Spinner · Post: # 531574Post **Spinner** » Thu 13 Mar 2008 6:29pm

bigcarl wrote:
Spinner wrote:Explain to me why any member would have a valid opinion on St Kilda's stand on expanding the competition to 18 teams?
because the members elect the boards to represent their views. pure logic.

And don't by pass the question.

Explain to me what makes us members qualified to have a valid opinion on weather expanding the competition is in the best interests of St Kilda and the AFL.

Spinner · Post: # 531575Post **Spinner** » Thu 13 Mar 2008 6:30pm

Spinner wrote:
bigcarl wrote:
Spinner wrote:Explain to me why any member would have a valid opinion on St Kilda's stand on expanding the competition to 18 teams?
because the members elect the boards to represent their views. pure logic.
And don't by pass the question.

Explain to me what makes us members qualified to have a valid opinion on weather expanding the competition is in the best interests of St Kilda and the AFL.

We don't....thats right.

And hence if your opinion differs with that of the St Kilda football club, as a member, then more often than not....your opinion is wrong.

bigcarl · Post: # 531577Post **bigcarl** » Thu 13 Mar 2008 6:34pm

Spinner wrote:Explain to me what makes us members qualified to have a valid opinion on weather expanding the competition is in the best interests of St Kilda and the AFL.

they are elected to represent their members and appear (from the small poll here) not to have, for whatever reason.

i can live with it, but i don't like it and neither will the 80 per cent who said no to 18 teams in our (admittedly small) poll

Life Long Saint · Thu 13 Mar 2008 6:53pm

I remember similar feelings when the league decided to add the West Coast Eagles and Brisbane Bears.

The AFL has learned a lot since then and I am sure that the addition of two teams now will be handled well and be as fair as possible.

The game must grow and this is a logical move.

bigcarl · Post: # 531584Post **bigcarl** » Thu 13 Mar 2008 6:56pm

Life Long Saint wrote:The game must grow and this is a logical move.

no problem with the game growing and expanding into new territory.

i just object to the fact that st kilda will now have less of a chance of winning a premiership. if we don't win it this year, i fear i'll never see another one in my lifetime.

i blame the kangaroos for the whole sorry mess.

melbourne cannot support the number of teams that it does now. it is simple market economics.

they should have taken the gold coast offer when it was on the table

saintspremiers · Thu 13 Mar 2008 6:56pm

I'm not too fussed if we go to 18 teams - means 9 footy matches each weekend which is good, the more footy the better in that respect.

What bothers me more is the lack of rounds - 22 rounds is not enough.

More money into the AFL hopefully means more funding for clubs, bigger lists and then the ability to play more rounds.

THAT to me is the big issue.

Even another 2 rounds would help enormously - reduces the offseason by 2 weeks and increases the real season by 2 weeks - a 4 week effective gain.

Enrico_Misso · Thu 13 Mar 2008 7:36pm

The game must grow.

But that doesn't mean the number of clubs needs to.

Look it's pretty simple.

There are too many clubs in Melbourne
Al least four of them are not viable long term.
The AFL wants to expand the competition into growth areas like the Gold Coast and Sydney's West.

So why not solve two problems at once ?