Where Should Team 20 Be Located? | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Where Should Team 20 Be Located?

Where Should Team 20 Be Located?

  • The Top End, playing out of Darwin/Alice Springs/Cairns?

  • 3rd Team in WA?

  • 3rd Team in SA?

  • Canberra

  • Sunshine Coast

  • Murray/Riverina Region, perhaps based out of Albury/Wodonga?

  • Other (please list)

  • No to a 20th team, but a merger to reduce teams back to 18

  • Cheese Sandwich

  • New Zealand

Results are only viewable after voting.
The idea of 10 games a week, with the attendant advertising revenue, will be too much for the AFL to resist.

Albury Wodonga is a great idea. Roll in Wagga Wagga, put the stadium at Burrumbuttock and trademark the slogan: we'll always have a crack.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
bigwow said:
I'd chop St Kilda as well, and try to get back to 16 teams.
Some selective mergers and relocations to rationalise the competition.
The talent pool is already stretched too thin.
Click to expand...

Much as StKilda are very unsuccessful, they are the only team in the southern part of Melbourne now with South Melbourne gone. I would retain StKilda but they really do need a second flag, at least.

The thing with North Melbourne and Footscray is that they are close and both have always struggled for financial security and have smaller fan bases.

I reckon StKilda have a larger potential fan base. Would have preferred they never moved from the Junction Oval (which is too long ago for me to remember, I remember Fitzroy playing there for years) but at least Moorabbin is further in the same direction. Seaford was a disaster.

DS
 
Infrastructure and economy says WA
Building a stadium outside the main cities isn’t an option as seen by the issues about getting Tassie team up with Government funding needed to succeed
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Number8 said:
The idea of 10 games a week, with the attendant advertising revenue, will be too much for the AFL to resist.

Albury Wodonga is a great idea. Roll in Wagga Wagga, put the stadium at Burrumbuttock and trademark the slogan: we'll always have a crack.
Click to expand...
With the team mascot being the bagpipers “pipers” or twirly whirlies
 
The population might be growing but the proportion of the population that follows afl doesn’t seem to be keeping pace. what Proportion of 21st century migrants have footy as their no 1 recreation let alone sport?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Sintiger said:
If we were making decisions purely as a business we would get rid of a team in Melbourne, North is the obvious one
We would move the giants to Canberra
Click to expand...
The Saints & North are the twoVic teams that are in the most debt with little chance of rectifying the situation regardless of future on field success.
If it was purely business these two would merge.
 
Last edited:
Tigers of Old said:
The Saints & North are the Vuic two teams that are in the most debt with little chance of rectifying the situation regardless of future on field success.
If it was purely business these two would merge.
Click to expand...
Yep it’s a weird AFL socialist/capitalist economy. Fitzroy died on economic rationalism but hasn’t happened again since. We came close.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
RoarEmotion said:
Yep it’s a weird AFL socialist/capitalist economy. Fitzroy died on economic rationalism but hasn’t happened again since. We came close.
Click to expand...

No it is definitely capitalist.

Make the most money you can.

Rig it so that it looks like there is competition but actually there is a fair bit of orchestration (for reference, see the privatisation of energy, telephone system etc).

Nothing socialist there, all about trying to keep a competition as having only a small group of teams competitive is a less valuable product.

DS
 
DavidSSS said:
No it is definitely capitalist.

Make the most money you can.

Rig it so that it looks like there is competition but actually there is a fair bit of orchestration (for reference, see the privatisation of energy, telephone system etc).

Nothing socialist there, all about trying to keep a competition as having only a small group of teams competitive is a less valuable product.

DS
Click to expand...
No. It’s both. You are taking about the AFL as an entity competing with other sports. I’m talking about it from a club perspective as well - hence why it is a mix.

Purely capitalist from a club perspective is no salary caps - whoever pays the most gets the best players and coaches. See the EPL.
 
RoarEmotion said:
No. It’s both. You are taking about the AFL as an entity competing with other sports. I’m talking about it from a club perspective as well - hence why it is a mix.

Purely capitalist from a club perspective is no salary caps - whoever pays the most gets the best players and coaches. See the EPL.
Click to expand...

Nah, capitalist is a controlled oligopoly, what you're thinking of is a perfectly competitive market, you'll only see one of them in an Economics 101 lecture, out in the real world they are a fiction!

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
DavidSSS said:
Nah, capitalist is a controlled oligopoly, what you're thinking of is a perfectly competitive market, you'll only see one of them in an Economics 101 lecture, out in the real world they are a fiction!

DS
Click to expand...
Don’t disagree with your second point at all.

Especially Having done economics 101 - yeah it’s a fiction given the core assumptions (rational economic actors with perfect knowledge) just don’t exist. You can get some situations with lots of actors and transparent pricing that do approach it though.

I’d still wonder though if any 20th team decisions would be based on afl executive pay packets or the good of the comp - but maybe I’m too cynical.
 
RoarEmotion said:
Don’t disagree with your second point at all.

Especially Having done economics 101 - yeah it’s a fiction given the core assumptions (rational economic actors with perfect knowledge) just don’t exist. You can get some situations with lots of actors and transparent pricing that do approach it though.

I’d still wonder though if any 20th team decisions would be based on afl executive pay packets or the good of the comp - but maybe I’m too cynical.
Click to expand...

Nope, you seem to be about the right amount cynical.

Agree on Eco101, bloody awful that was.

DS
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Won’t happen but

NT

Would be a magical, sublime addition to the comp and an immediate second team for me (and many)
 
RoarEmotion said:
There are going to be some massive premiership droughts.

20 years on average per flag means 3-4 in your lifetime is an expected return if every team wins one every 20 years. We have truly been blessed these last few years so will be hard to keep perspective. Supports rolling the dice on a flag when you can for me. NFL/NHL have 32 and NBA 3, EPL is kind of crazy with all its divisions so we are low on that scale.
Click to expand...

That was my concern when we went to 18 teams. History says we won 3 flags, but the game will lose fans if supporters don’t think their team is a realistic chance of winning one.
Tigers of Old said:
The Saints & North are the Vuic two teams that are in the most debt with little chance of rectifying the situation regardless of future on field success.
If it was purely business these two would merge.
Click to expand...

I thought Norf are in zero debt?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You must log in or register to reply here.
< THE FINAL 8 | We are only 2 games outside the 8 >
Official PRE merch now on Redbubble!
Top Bottom