meltiger said:
Puts the whinging about the Competitive Balance Fund into perspective ... Is it actually doing any harm whatsoever to the clubs that can essentially print money?
Indeed.
People who push a rampant capitalist approach to elite sport miss the point. Competition for the AFL is not a means to the product, but rather
it is the product itself. The AFL understands that to have a vibrant product it needs a strong and health grouping of clubs across the board, given the attachment of so many fans to their particular club and the traditions those clubs espouse.
This is why the AFL has steps in place to try to promote a
degree of equillibrium across the competition. As West Coast clearly illustrates, it is hardly an acute form of socialism, given that certain clubs will always perform more strongly off the park than others which, in turn, will help with their strength on the park.
In essence, the AFL push for equillibrium can only do so much for the less well to do clubs, particularly when equalisation measures (such as they are) cannot ensure sound management priniciples at individual clubs, nor can they override intangibles, such as pure dumb sh*thouse luck.
At any rate, sides like Adelaide & West Coast may complain about the AFL's approach to the VIC-based clubs, but they need bear in mind that the strength of the competition can be largely traced to the good will & potency of the AFL brand which, in turn, has been predominantly derived from a century of support for the VIC-based clubs.
meltiger said:
North Melbourne cannot possibly survive in Melbourne as a stand alone entity, they have absoloutely no fans (25k to a final is utterly disgraceful) and after playing in 10 prelim finals (or better) in a row - They are still a financial basketcase. (I shake my head in disgust at them every time i think about that - Imagine Richmond's membership if we could perform on the field like that)
Despite my comments above, it would appear that some sort of rationalisation will need to occur among the VIC-based sides. The Kangaroos would be top of such a list. I've long admired the Kangaroos because in the past they've been the flagship, no-holds barred, risk takers and innovators of the competition, but -- alas -- those days are gone.
Their recent switch to a full-on top-up mode in the hope of doing a Steven Bradbury on the competition, shows how far they've diverged from the bold, go-getting unit of the 70s through 90s. They've effectively admitted to a willingness to keep themselves "middle of the road", and are essentially removing themselves and their fans from future flag ambition. Their ongoing financial woes now preoccupy them more than on-field performances, and they fear failure too much to aggressively chase success.
meltiger said:
However, I see the need for one more team to be dropped, common sense would tell you the Western Bulldogs or Melbourne (Based on Financial performance) - However, the Dogs now cover a massive region of Melbourne, and I strongly beleive an extended stay in the top 8/premiership will ignite the potential of this club. Melbourne - Will the AFL ever not have a team called Melbourne in the comp? I seriously doubt it.
Melbourne are also in real trouble. So are the Bulldogs, although enthusiasm surrounding their young side is holding the wolves at bay at the moment. The bigger problem for the Bulldogs is that their youth support (small to begin with) has been decimated across the 80s & 90s by Essendon. It will take a sustained run of success (which is anything but guaranteed) to boost this flagging support base and, even then, the true bounty will not be accessible for 10-15 years afterward, when the new breed of young fans are able to step up to adulthood and provide much needed adult membership support to the club.
meltiger said:
That leaves Richmond and Hawthorn in the hot seat ... & at both clubs, I can not see any possibility whatsoever that the members would agree to a merger. Both sets of members have had their chance in the past and chose to keep their clubs alive.
Yes.
Richmond have had hard years, but given their success during the late 60s and 70s, they were able to garner sufficient flow on support to see the side through the worst of it. Hawthorn finds itself relying largely on the children of the 70s & 80s to see it through a grim ten+ years of results. This goodwill is beginning to wear thin...
Both clubs would, I suspect, go to the wall rather than merge, although Hawthorn may not be totally impartial to a relocation (if required).
Carlton also has plenty of problems, although it would be delighted by its membership figures, which -- again -- highlight the flow on to come out of the club's success during the 70s & 80s.
Carlton is more poorly situated than either Hawthorn or Richmond right now, but -- if the sh*t were to go down in Grenada -- can call upon significantly greater high level financial backing from its reservoir of bluebloods.
