new team will get permission to poach players

[stinger]

AFL expansion: 18's enough?

Michael Gleeson | February 19, 2008

LIKE kids playing hide-and-seek, the AFL has put its head down and is counting to a hundred. In three years, it will lift its lid and bellow loud enough so that those to the north can hear it: "Here we come, ready or not."

Those evangelists and converts on the Gold Coast assert that they are ready now. They want to be found.

Those in western Sydney will be given another year before the AFL comes through. To date, the fans here seem to be quite good at hiding.

The business of sport insists on football expanding to ward off competition from rival codes and to expand the market of players and viewers of the game. That means two more teams could join an already bulging AFL slate of 16 clubs within five years.

Last weekend, AFL Commission chairman Mike Fitzpatrick told The Age of the league's insistence that a team be located on the Gold Coast by 2011 and western Sydney a year after that. The haste to push into Sydney's west in a meaningful way, and that the league was prepared to expand its competition — to not wait for attrition to squeeze a reluctant Melbourne team north — revealed a significant change in AFL thinking.

This determined path of expansionism has been trodden before. Heaven forbid the lessons of the Bears and Swans have not been learnt.
THE TEAMS
The AFL's proposed new team for the Gold Coast for season 2011 could arrive much sooner. Suggestions have arisen that the new club could begin playing in the local QAFL competition as soon as next year with players being drafted for the club from the national draft as early as this year.

Under this proposal, teenagers drafted to Queensland would be playing in the QAFL next year — as with many recruits to AFL clubs playing in the state leagues ahead of making an AFL debut — but they would have no capacity to play AFL for the first year or two of their contracts. This may have significant restraint of trade legal hurdles to clear.

The successful experience of rugby league's Titans in being given 18 months to establish as a club and get their infrastructure right before commencing in the National Rugby League suggests the value of the longest possible lead-in time.

Furthermore, the experience of Port Adelaide in being a legitimate established club that was able to sign and hold players for a year or two before joining the AFL ensured its more immediate ability to make the transition from state to national league.

Presumably the creation of an entity for western Sydney also would be done as a matter of priority so it, too, could try to get some momentum before inclusion in the AFL.

These state league clubs would better allow for club personnel, training and management structures to be established as much as playing personnel.
THE PLAYERS
Quite how you find 88 extra players for two new franchises is another thing. The AFL accepts that it cannot allow the two new ventures to be established in name only, and that a foothold is only established with success on the field. Thus, suggestions already have been made in football circles as to how this might occur.

One suggestion is for each club to list 10 "untouchables". New clubs then would have the right to seek to contract two players from each club's list outside of those untouchables. The contracted players also would have to want to go, so presumably the financial leeway afforded the Brisbane Lions and Sydney until recently will be reinstated. Significant additional financial incentive must be offered to contracted players to induce them to break a contract and change states.

The difficulty with the notion of untouchables is that it means none of the best 160 players in the competition would be at either of the two new clubs. Unless of course one of those players was uncontracted and prepared to walk for a handsome pay cheque. Not an unheard-of occurrence.

There has been some suggestion — angrily rejected by many at club level — that even from the untouchable list, one player could be taken. Thus the untouchables become touchable.

This appears unlikely but what it might do is inform an argument that perhaps 10 is too many to be considered untouchable and that perhaps that list be trimmed to five or seven.

Beyond that, the best young talent in the country is likely to be available to the new clubs in their formative years. Both clubs are likely to be given priority draft selections of the first two or three draft picks each year for the first few years of their existence.

Contentiously, there also could be a re-institution of priority draft zones with the Lions and the new Gold Coast team — known as what, the Dolphins? The White Shoes? The Melanomas? — sharing priority access to local talent and the same in NSW for the Swans and the Western Sydney Ugg Boots. This probably would render redundant other initiatives to develop the game and cultivate players such as the NSW scholarship scheme.

This move would meet significant resistance from Victorian clubs, some of which would argue they have had more success with finding and developing talent from the northern states than the Lions or Swans have had in the past.

But the reality is the players have to come from somewhere. Doubtless, there will be a minor dilution of talent in the competition — as was the case when the competition expanded from 12 to 16 teams — but whether it will be sufficient to detract from the quality of the spectacle put on weekly is another matter. What is certain is that it will hurt the feeder state competitions, denying them further players, but supplying players is what feeder competitions do.
THE FORMAT
An 18-team competition creates a range of possibilities. The first option would be to trim the season back to 17 rounds and have each team play one another once. This would create an evenness in the competition that would be absent from the draft and salary cap concessions granted to new start-up clubs.

Another option available then for a competition that models so much of its structure on the National Football League would be to split the league into two conferences of nine teams each. This would create a weekly bye in each conference, which is not ideal. Under one option, a conference system could work on a 21-round season followed by an expanded finals series.

Which teams go in which conferences obviously would be problematic. Naturally, for derby/showdown reasons as well as the travel, the two Perth teams would be in the same conference, as would the two teams each from Adelaide, Sydney and Queensland. Victorian teams would be divided between the conferences, though presumably the likes of Collingwood and Essendon would be in the one conference to preserve Anzac Day.

Another option is to keep the system as it is — a 22-round season and a top eight making the finals — and then only have each team play five other sides twice instead of the seven sides as is currently the case. The advantage in one regard would be that the final eight would not halve the competition and ensure making the finals represented an above-average performance.
TELEVISION
While expanding the competition is about expanding the game's reach to participants and viewers, there is little doubt it is also about expanding the bank balance. And there seems little doubt it will do that. The AFL's next television rights deal — indeed as each one that has preceded it has done — could break new ground. It has been suggested an expanded competition would be a genuine billion-dollar business.

Senior football industry figures have suggested the increase in the number of teams and games would represent a 20% increase in the value of the rights, aside from any natural price growth from the increase in new media. Media buyer Harold Mitchell said he agreed with the estimate, saying a billion-dollar deal would be the expectation, particularly because of the voracious appetite for content — and in particular sports content — of the internet, mobile phones and high definition television.

The extra game a week created by the introduction of an extra two teams — depending on the structure — would be likely to go to pay TV, as the free-to-air broadcasting market is saturated for coverage. Unless, of course, the free-to-air networks desired additional content for HDTV channels or the rights were further unbundled and spread across all free-to-air networks as well as pay TV.

So maybe the AFL does not have its head down counting for hide-and-seek. Maybe the chiefs are just counting the zeroes on the next TV deal.

Here they come, ready or not.
"



********************************************************


flowering great eh??????

[Huzzad]

Read this last night and was quite worried. If we only get 10 untouchables, then after we name them, the teams can apply for anyone of the other players on our team. I believe though, that the players have to WANT to leave the Saints as well, but the dollar figure they will be able to offer may just be too enticing.

Who would you put as your 10 untouchbles?

[bigcarl]

the 18 teams scenario will not come into effect unless 11 of the 16 existing clubs agree to it.

i just hope our board has the balls and vision to vote against it, overlooking the short-term lure of financial gain.

16 teams is too many already, IMO, and two more will mean even less of a chance of your club winning a premiership.

I blame the kangaroos for the whole sorry fiasco.

they are broke and cannot survive financially in their current state.

they should have taken the gold coast option.

their supporters now face not having a club to support at all a couple of years down the track

if we were in the same situation and could not pay our bills i'd vote for us to survive even if it meant relocating

[Huzzad]

I don't mind the idea of 2 new teams, business-wise, it would be stupid of the AFL not to get extra teams in QLD and Sydney. Plus, gives me an alternative to those stupid Swans! But 18 is alot, but not unheard of. Look at the 20-something teams playing FA Premier League in England for example. The only thing I don't like, is the potential for "conferences." I really do not like the idea that we will not get to play every other team, thus playing the same 9 clubs over and over every year.

[bigcarl]

my biggest problem with it is that it will mean that statistically st kilda has even less of a chance of ever winning another flag.

the afl's stance reminds me of the governments in the early part of last century who tried to solve poverty by printing more money.

[riccardo]

Its all the mighty $$ talking here.

An extra game a week = more broacasting rights = more money. Its that simple.

The AFL would have 45 teams if it thought it could get away with it.

[bigcarl]

Its all the mighty $$ talking here.

An extra game a week = more broacasting rights = more money. Its that simple.

The AFL would have 45 teams if it thought it could get away with it.

yeah. where is it going to end? 24 teams?

[matt_of_moorabbin]

I must admit I find the idea exciting. Even with two more non-victorian teams there will be more victorian teams in the comp, that seems pretty odd to me...if it was the saints i'd hate it, but a couple of melbourne teams need to make way...

I love the game so much, it would be great to see it expand to new places...eventually taking over the world!!! haha

[bigcarl]

i don't mind the idea of the league expanding into new territory.

but it should do so by relocating melbourne clubs that cannot survive in the marketplace, such as the kangaroos

melbourne is supporting way too many clubs. it's simple demographics and no co-incidence that a melbourne club has not won the premiership since essendon in 2000

[Huzzad]

My 10 Untouchables
(From players most likely to still be with us in 2 years)

Riewoldt (Assuming he doesn't want to play for the GC- wants to win 5 premierships instead of one )
Sam Fisher
Lenny
Monty
BJ
Dal Santo
Kosi
Maguire
Gram
Bakes

[riccardo]

My 10 Untouchables
(From players most likely to still be with us in 2 years)

Riewoldt (Assuming he doesn't want to play for the GC- wants to win 5 premierships instead of one )
Sam Fisher
Lenny
Monty
BJ
Dal Santo
Kosi
Maguire
Gram
Bakes

How about Bally?

Others, I totally agree, but maybe take out Bakes for Bally.

[stinger]

My 10 Untouchables
(From players most likely to still be with us in 2 years)

Riewoldt (Assuming he doesn't want to play for the GC- wants to win 5 premierships instead of one )
Sam Fisher
Lenny
Monty
BJ
Dal Santo
Kosi
Maguire
Gram
Bakes

How about Bally?

Others, I totally agree, but maybe take out Bakes for Bally.

probably the right ten....

[CURLY]

Take out Gram and BAKES and replace with Ball and Mcevoy/ Armitage.

[Huzzad]

My 10 Untouchables
(From players most likely to still be with us in 2 years)

Riewoldt (Assuming he doesn't want to play for the GC- wants to win 5 premierships instead of one )
Sam Fisher
Lenny
Monty
BJ
Dal Santo
Kosi
Maguire
Gram
Bakes

How about Bally?

Others, I totally agree, but maybe take out Bakes for Bally.

I thought about Bally, but not too sure about him to be honest. Good player, but struggled with injury and form (maybe the two are related?). Would have to see him have a big year this year for me to swap him for Bakes. Ball definatly has the potential, he has just struggled the last two years so for me, I need to see him pick himself up a bit. If he is injured, he shouldn't really be playing. Look, nothing against Ball, I just want to see him significantly lift his game back up to the standards we were used to 2 years ago, where as Bakes has been very consistant.

[riccardo]

Take out Gram and BAKES and replace with Ball and Mcevoy/ Armitage.

Two experienced, well performed senior players for a rookie and a one year player? You must be kidding.

Ball and Gram have more value than Armo (pretty good, but not seen enough of him yet) and McEvoy (who has not played minute one yet).

[meher baba]

I wouldn't have Bakes on my list: great player in the past, but the AFL seems to be trying to rub him out of the game, so he's not going to be available often enough for mine.

Gilbert is surely a star of the future in the making and should be on the list.

Agree with most named by other posters, although I think that it's a bit of a toss up of which two players to list out of Maguire, Gram and Bally.

Of course, I'm still violently opposed to the whole idea of clubs in Western Sydney and the Gold Coast, rather than in places like Canberra and Tassie where there are lots of AFL fans who are prepared to get out and watch a game. (The Gold Coast has plenty of fans, sure, but they prefer to watch the games on TV in an air-conditioned room.)

[CURLY]

Take out Gram and BAKES and replace with Ball and Mcevoy/ Armitage.

Two experienced, well performed senior players for a rookie and a one year player? You must be kidding.

Ball and Gram have more value than Armo (pretty good, but not seen enough of him yet) and McEvoy (who has not played minute one yet).

Youd like to think in two years time they would be in our top 5. Gram is possibly behind X at this stage.

[riccardo]

Take out Gram and BAKES and replace with Ball and Mcevoy/ Armitage.

Two experienced, well performed senior players for a rookie and a one year player? You must be kidding.

Ball and Gram have more value than Armo (pretty good, but not seen enough of him yet) and McEvoy (who has not played minute one yet).

Youd like to think in two years time they would be in our top 5.

Theres no way of knowing that,. In two years, Ball could have got his groin right and won a Brownlow, while maybe Armo has second year syndrome and never recovers.

If in two years time this is not the case then I'll recind my comments, but putting untried players over proven performers because they "might be good" is poor planning.

[Otiman]

I believe we can take advantage of this situation for sustainable success.

Given that we will be compensated for draft picks, hopefully relative to the value of the player, we can use it to re-recruit for the dearth we will have with the next big wave of retirements.

I've always thought that we will have sustainable success until we have a mass retirement over one or two years of Riewoldt, Koschitzke, Ball, Dal Santo, Maguire, Gram, and so on.

If we could trade Maguire, Gram, and Dal Santo in 2009/2010 for 3 or 4 top 10 picks, then we should do it with extreme vigour.

[CURLY]

Gram has played one really good season. The others Armitage and Mcevoy should be top liners in two years time.

[Huzzad]

If we could trade Maguire, Gram, and Dal Santo in 2009/2010 for 3 or 4 top 10 picks, then we should do it with extreme vigour.

I'd rather see those players run out the rest of their career in Saints colours like Harvs

[riccardo]

Gram has played one really good season. The others Armitage and Mcevoy should be top liners in two years time.

The point I'm trying to make is "shoulda, coulda, woulda". Wether they kick on or not is something we can't really tell as yet.

FWIW, I thought Grams year last year was very servicable after his very good 2006. He is, at this moment, worth more than Armo or McEvoy, and I'm saying that with absolutely no bias at all.

We can evaluate again after this year, when each have played another (or in McEvoys case, one) season.

[Mr Magic]

My list of 10 untouchables:-

BLAKE
RIX
McQUALTER
FIORA
FERGUSON
GWILT
Alan MURRAY
McGOUGH
BROOKS
WATTS
(The last four we can pick up over then next couple of drafts!)

[bigcarl]

i'm still hoping that it will never come to us having to produce a list of untouchables

[CURLY]

If someone offererd us a pick 9 for Gram wed take it.
Mcevoy and Armitage value at Stkilda is extremly high as they are potentally our number 1 mid and number 1 ruck. Unfortuanatly thats how it is in the AFL.