18 teams going ahead
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- Saintschampions08
- Club Player
- Posts: 732
- Joined: Thu 31 Jan 2008 11:04am
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18628
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1967 times
- Been thanked: 862 times
and less chance of a premiership for your club. once we were one of 12, now we're going to be one of 18Saintschampions08 wrote:Why not? Most successful competitions have at least 20+ teams.
Generally more teams = More money = More fans = More successful.
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
Last edited by bigcarl on Thu 13 Mar 2008 6:51pm, edited 2 times in total.
- Spinner
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8502
- Joined: Sat 02 Dec 2006 3:40pm
- Location: Victoria
- Has thanked: 185 times
- Been thanked: 133 times
Why would fans from already existing club vote to install 2 new franchises?bigcarl wrote:and less chance of a premiership for your club. once we were one of 12, now we're going to be one of 18Saintschampions08 wrote:Why not? Most successful competitions have at least 20+ teams.
Generally more teams = More money = More fans = More successful.
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
Thats why the vote isn't in the hands of the public. Pure Logic.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18628
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1967 times
- Been thanked: 862 times
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.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.
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
Last edited by bigcarl on Thu 13 Mar 2008 6:06pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Spinner
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8502
- Joined: Sat 02 Dec 2006 3:40pm
- Location: Victoria
- Has thanked: 185 times
- Been thanked: 133 times
Well, actually no, they represent the St Kilda Football Club.bigcarl wrote: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.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.
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.
,,,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......
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18628
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1967 times
- Been thanked: 862 times
- Spinner
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8502
- Joined: Sat 02 Dec 2006 3:40pm
- Location: Victoria
- Has thanked: 185 times
- Been thanked: 133 times
I would doubt that most members would know what is best for the St Kilda football club.bigcarl wrote:they are elected by the members to represent st kilda football club ... and would do well to remember it.Spinner wrote:Well, actually no, they represent the St Kilda Football Club.
...That is why the board makes those types of decisions.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18628
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1967 times
- Been thanked: 862 times
- Spinner
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8502
- Joined: Sat 02 Dec 2006 3:40pm
- Location: Victoria
- Has thanked: 185 times
- Been thanked: 133 times
And what makes any of those opinions valid....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.
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.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18628
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1967 times
- Been thanked: 862 times
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.
imo our club (like all the rest of them) has just rolled over on this one.
Last edited by bigcarl on Thu 13 Mar 2008 6:22pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Spinner
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8502
- Joined: Sat 02 Dec 2006 3:40pm
- Location: Victoria
- Has thanked: 185 times
- Been thanked: 133 times
Administration will no doubt listen to their members when they believe they have a valid say in any such matter.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
This is a matter that members have no valid opinion in...and rightfully so.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18628
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1967 times
- Been thanked: 862 times
- Spinner
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8502
- Joined: Sat 02 Dec 2006 3:40pm
- Location: Victoria
- Has thanked: 185 times
- Been thanked: 133 times
This is an issue that member don't have a valid opinion on.bigcarl wrote:there are no issues that members don't have a valid opinion onSpinner wrote:This is a matter that members have no valid opinion in...and rightfully so.
Explain to me why any member would have a valid opinion on St Kilda's stand on expanding the competition to 18 teams?
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18628
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1967 times
- Been thanked: 862 times
- Spinner
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8502
- Joined: Sat 02 Dec 2006 3:40pm
- Location: Victoria
- Has thanked: 185 times
- Been thanked: 133 times
No. Members elect board because we are incapable (or not as qualifies) to make these decisions ourselves.bigcarl wrote:because the members elect the boards to represent their views. pure logic.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?
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
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8502
- Joined: Sat 02 Dec 2006 3:40pm
- Location: Victoria
- Has thanked: 185 times
- Been thanked: 133 times
And don't by pass the question.bigcarl wrote:because the members elect the boards to represent their views. pure logic.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?
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
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8502
- Joined: Sat 02 Dec 2006 3:40pm
- Location: Victoria
- Has thanked: 185 times
- Been thanked: 133 times
We don't....thats right.Spinner wrote:And don't by pass the question.bigcarl wrote:because the members elect the boards to represent their views. pure logic.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?
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.
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.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18628
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1967 times
- Been thanked: 862 times
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
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5520
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:54pm
- Has thanked: 62 times
- Been thanked: 481 times
- Contact:
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18628
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1967 times
- Been thanked: 862 times
no problem with the game growing and expanding into new territory.Life Long Saint wrote:The game must grow and this is a logical move.
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
Last edited by bigcarl on Thu 13 Mar 2008 6:57pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 25303
- Joined: Tue 01 Feb 2005 4:25pm
- Location: Trump Tower
- Has thanked: 142 times
- Been thanked: 284 times
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.
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.
i am Melbourne Skies - sometimes Blue Skies, Grey Skies, even Partly Cloudy Skies.
- Enrico_Misso
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11662
- Joined: Tue 13 Jun 2006 12:11am
- Location: Moorabbin Chapter of The Royal Society of Hagiographers
- Has thanked: 315 times
- Been thanked: 720 times
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 ?
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 ?
The rest of Australia can wander mask-free, socialise, eat out, no curfews, no zoning, no police rings of steel, no illogical inconsistent rules.
They can even WATCH LIVE FOOTY!
They can even WATCH LIVE FOOTY!