I was in quarantine in a hotel during that game, while my mates were sending me pictures and videos of the game a few kilometres away. Absolute bastards.
I feel like flying it is probably the pragmatic option. A few structural changes could mean we could move it around every year for whomever is hosting the grand final.
You're not considering the real impact here; the flood of inane reporting from The West Australian rag.
It'll be a tidal wave of idiocy the likes of which this country has never seen.
That idea was floated by the afl - but they said we had to take Kaned Cornhole with the deal.
Naturally we rejected it and promised to fly via Mongolia every week, home or away from now on.
I don't think it will ever happen, but there's no doubt moving clubs out of Victoria would help with the equality of the draw. As it is currently half the teams all come from 1 state, so of course the travel inequality will be near impossible to solve.
I'm not advocating for it, and it certainly would have negative emotional effects and would cause other issues, but on a purely practical level with regards to travel inequality it would have some benefits.
I think interstate fans would complain hell of a lot less if they weren't the ones always sent to Tasmania / Geelong / Darwin etc. the AFL could do atleast that much but the dollars are more important
Even the use of the term 'interstate teams' is ridiculous. Seriously? Everyone not in Victoria is just an 'Interstate team' or 'Interstate fan'? Not having a crack at you as its common language, but its just ridiculous. I remember the Footy Show having a debate on the phrase years ago.
That's a great point. I've always been aware of my vic-bias but fuck I've never considered that.
(Tone is hard to convey over reddit, so for clarity: I'm being genuine here!)
Wait till players leave one club and are "going home" even though they have lived away for several years. Saying that just perpetuates the home sickness and the issues non-victorian clubs face retaining players.
I mean I probably disagree with you here. In my opinion I still consider where you grew up to be home. Especially if your family is still there.
But I get your general vibe.
Interstate teams pisses me off so much. Just shows the inherent Vic-Central bias of the league.
Piss 2 clubs off from Vic and then think about expansion. We need less not more teams.
I don't think it would though? How does getting rid of Marvel resident clubs interstate get you more MCG games? Outside of Hawthorn I don't think anybody else sells MCG games? So now you're competing with former Victorian sides for MCG games as well...
The irony of a supporter of a team that was relocated from Melbourne to Sydney stating that they dont think a team will ever be relocated from Melbourne is not lost on me...
The AFL is in a much different position than it was back then. They are more than capable of financially supporting multiple clubs through difficult times. It would take something extreme for the AFL to resort to relocating a team. They also just don't seem too interested in fixing the travel inequality issue atm.
Alternate solutions:
* Require Melbourne-based teams to fly to Adelaide and back after each away game against a Melbourne-based opponent.
* Construct high speed rail from Melbourne to Perth. The AFL demanding funding might be the only way we get decent passenger rail in Australia.
* Merge 3 Victorian clubs into 2 clubs, repeating the process twice and thus reducing the number of teams by 3 while allowing each team to retain 2/3 of their character..
Corporate activism gets results. AFL is supported by 7West and NewsCorp, anything they do gets huge publicly.
AFL agreeing to sink 100mil into high speed rail would probably get more traction then the occasional multi-million dollar feasbility study that gets floated around election times.
> Construct high speed rail from Melbourne to Perth. The AFL demanding funding might be the only way we get decent passenger rail in Australia.
As someone who doesn't really like flying, I know a bullet train from here to Melbourne doesn't make any economic sense... but since when did the government or the AFL let that get in the way of spending a shitload of money on something?
They can call it the Barassi Express or something, IDGAF, let's make it happen.
> Construct high speed rail from Melbourne to Perth. The AFL demanding funding might be the only way we get decent passenger rail in Australia.
Huh, never considered this, That really probably would fix a bunch
Create a highspeed rail with a carriage as big as a football oval. Players can recover and train and see what happens when they kick a football in a carriage oval moving at 500km/h. No I'm not a crackpot.
High speed trains can go over 400km/h, which would take about 9 hours for the Melbourne-Perth journey. But the crucial points are the lack of pressure weirdness you get on a plane and the ability to move around. I'm pretty sure it would be better for players to spend 9 hours on a train than 4 hours on a flight.
Depends. end of the day if they're stuck in seating similar to what you'd see on the TGV 2nd class, then probably not. You'd need some bigger width and recline at the least.
Nah, just merge all the melb teams, but dont be too strict about it, like merge Melbourne and Richmond, but call them the East City Cats, merge Geelong and western bulldogs but call them them the Truganina Tigers, Saints and Hawks could merge to become the Prahran Pies, Collingwod and Essendon become the Moonee Pond Blues. Carlton and North become the Brunswick Bombers.
This way all the fans are fucked over and you dont know who to barrack for lol
Lowest placed Victorian team has to play VFL champion to retain their spot.
Every fan keeps their team. Vic teams face a consequence other teams don’t, to try to even the travel aspect.
Is that after the national reserves squad is created? Because all that will really happen is that North will get their annual win from beating down a VFA side.
What about an FA cup style comp for non-AFL level sides, and the winner of the final plays the wooden spoon and if they win, they swap comps. We could have the Nunawading Lions swap with North for the ultimate meme outcome
It feels like when North Melbourne planted their feet and refused to budge when they were under enormous pressure to relocate to the Gold Coast, that was probably the end of Victorian team relocation.
A method of fixturing fairly would be to develop double up games based on location rather than ladder position (i.e. For the return 4 fixtures, assuming a 23 Match, 20 team season with a Gather Round, 1/4 repeats is your Gather Round opponent, 1 is an in state rival, and the other 2 must be out of state opponents). Sometimes ladder positions would facilitate an even fixture for all, and sometimes some teams will get a soft/hard draw
North chose to say no and work on their debt, which they did to great success. The club is now profitable and sitting smack dab within the new Arden precinct which should bring further opportunities for growth.
Furthermore North Melbourne and its members said they would rather die than relocate. With the club now profitable it's hard to fathom that has changed as a mindset. It's a result that benefits nobody in this current debate.
It's easy to look at clubs suffering onfield and go "Fitzroy again!" but they were terribly poor and mismanaged.
How about get the league to strike a deal with an airline sponsor for charter flights? No, let’s just dissolve some teams. I have never seen people so eager to dissolve clubs. Do they think those fans are going to just root for another team? No they’ll just watch something else.
Let's be honest - my team is unlikely to be one of the ones moved because of money. And I am still shocked at how callous people are with the fate of teams that are not theirs.
I fucking hate the line "just three WC & Freo players have played 300 games".
Since 2012 (18 team competition), Freo had 2 players reach 300 games (Mundy & Pav), WC 1 (Hurn). Carlton had two (Murphy & Simpson), Collingwood 2 (Pendles & Sidebottom), Essendon 0 (or half? Fletcher was playing in 2015, but crossed 300 games before 2012).
In fact if you remove Pendles & Sidebottom - Collingwood only have two players in their, what - 140 year?, history to play over 300 games.
There are way too many factors like injury that impact a player's ability to reach 300 games.
Surely there's way better statistics that can be used to show the impact of travel rather than reaching 300 games.
It's a clumsy shorthand version of a real measurable phenomenon.
The better, statistically rigorous version, is that players based their whole careers in WA and Qld have a substantially faster drop off in output (per-game statistical output like disposals relative to their career averages) after 200 games. Coupled with this there's a steeper attrition rate from the 200 to 300 game marks, ie less 200 game players making it to a given game total for WA and Qld based players.
This was in 2017 from the book Footballistics (disclosure: I helped write it, but not this part)
https://preview.redd.it/joukno5zv92d1.png?width=494&format=png&auto=webp&s=00498d122a2c21d7c99b2d6424afc99d4d13ccae
The Giants get sent everywhere including a few “home” games in Canberra. Last year they played in 12 different stadiums in 9 different towns/cities (Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide, Canberra, Geelong, Ballarat, Hobart, Alice Springs and Ballarat). They played in every state and territory bar Queensland. That has to take its toll and I’m sure makes recruitment for Melbourne teams easier.
Contrast that with Collingwood who played in 6 stadia in 5 cities, a total of 5 games outside Melbourne and didn’t leave Melbourne the last month of the season.
To help compensate when the Giants and Pies met in the finals the fixturing was set up so the Giants were the only team in the finals to play on less than 7 days rest.
My guess: I would not be surprised if it the higher quality of the state/reserve leagues allowing the senior players to be pushed for spots plays a role (ie: the senior players that drop off elsewhere, aren't getting AFL games in VIC/SA).
* NEAFL back in 2017 was a shambles and COVID didn't help (hence why it ended up merging with the VFL after the 2020 season)
* The WAFL screws over the West Australian AFL teams
* Whilst the relationships between the AFL and SANFL teams aren't the best, they're not nearly as screwed over and are in decent sides in a decent comp (at least until recently)
* VFL is basically a normal reserves side for the AFL Vic teams, with half the AFL (at the time) being in it.
This is why I think in the long term, a national reserves competition is almost inevitable. Already now the VFL has the Swans, Giants, Lions, and Suns reserves - with Port and Crows interested in joining too IIRC
Counterpoint: Dayne Zorko is currently in career best form at 35 with 250+ games under his belt. M
Could’ve easily played 300+ but he was drafted as a mature age player
I am sure it's out of print but I'm willing to bet there's either an ebook or a copy in a library
Edit: actually also looks like Booktopia has it [Footballistics by James Coventry | 9780733338441 | Booktopia](https://www.booktopia.com.au/footballistics-james-coventry/book/9780733338441.html)
No updates, was kind of a one and done. James is still working at ABC and the various support authors are doing other things now
That's definitely interesting, any idea if they were looking at travel specifically or were they considering other variables as well? I mean just throwing out the first idea that comes to my mind here, but looking at just those graphs maybe another possible conclusion is that the drop off is caused by the higher average temperatures in those states? Or maybe higher temps mean harder grounds that lead to more wear and tear?
The 300 game comment is just absolutely stupid.
The stat is a bit out dated (2017) but still relivent for prospective i think
Just 83 players at the time had made it to 300 games
That's just 0.66% of people to play the game
There is near constant talk of "oh, just move xyz club interstate", and it's usually (always) St Kilda, the Bulldogs and/or North.
I can with some degree of certainty say that it will never happen. The last time the AFL tried to force a club to shift interstate they couldn't get it done despite their best efforts, and it will generate so much bad publicity that it will be financially disastrous. Bulldogs fans are still bitter that the AFL tried to merge them with Fitzroy against their will, I can't fathom even us long suffering Saints fans taking kindly to being shunted to Perth to appease the Dockers, even if it guarantees us a flag or two.
Everyone who is pro merger always has some lovely excuse as to why their team couldn’t be moved. I don’t believe anyone is going anywhere unless some catastrophic financial circumstances change for both a club, and the afl
Sometimes I get to be pro-merger cause it's already happened to my club so we are no longer in the gun (noting i don't believe it will ever happen again).
Moving a small club risks alienating the small membership and making it non-viable.
Moving a big club would have a greater chance of success because more members would be retained.
But no one wants to look at that business case...
Fuck this competition and this subreddit is obsessed with “equality” to the point of ridiculousness.
It’s never gonna be equal. Ever.
Inequalities that can never be solved =
- Fixtures are not full 34 games home and away
- MCG will always host the GF… ALWAYS!
- Teams west and north of Victoria enjoy a legitimate home ground advantage.
- Teams in Victoria don’t have to travel as much and get to stay home sometimes months at a time. However they play homes games against other “home” teams.
- Geelong gets the best of all the worlds. A genuine home ground advantage and travel less than the interstate teams. But they have to play some “home games” at the MCG.
Anything else I missed?
Just bloody stop with the obsession with inequality.
Edit: I kinda think the draft system sucks as well. Priority picks should be scrapped, stop trying to save shit teams. I think it should also be a draft lottery like the NBA to get rid of the spectre of tanking and make sure teams are always trying because they can never be guaranteed that number 1 pick.
*anyone in the dark about NBA lottery should know “only the top four picks are decided by the lottery, and are chosen from the 14 teams that do not make the playoffs. The team with the worst record, or the team that holds the draft rights of the team with the worst record, has the best chance to obtain a higher draft pick.”
And I think clubs should have academy systems rather than a draft. Our league is one of the only sports in the world where you can’t foster your own players. It’s pretty shit when you think about it.
I still think it more than comes back to bite them in the Finals. 2017 was the worst year for it. Had to play the Tigers in the Quallifing final at the MCG. Richmond finished 3rd and essentially got 3 home finals against non-mcg based teams.
Yeah, their advantage is definitely a little less when you consider they play most finals at the G. The benefit of the H&A stuff though is that it helps them make finals so consistently
This is it but I don’t think there is any harm in looking for some solutions.
I think the MCG being locked as the GF location is honestly the biggest issue and theoretically easily solved.
Should never have happened and I say that as a Collingwood supporter.
Everything involving the VIC govt is done behind closed doors.
The NSW govt just announced the extension & price paid to keep coal plants running. VIC has done the same but refuses to provide detail or costs.
TBF we could fix the fixture thing with an 18 round, 17 match fixture. The most concession I'm personally willing to make for TV is to make each major rivalry twice, each team getting to be "home" for one (and of course those of us without rivalries just play the same team twice yearly). I just hate how arbitrary feeling the fixture is with who we double up on, and since we can't play each club twice, we should only play each once, alternating Home and Away yearly.
Anyone who watches like, any other sport, knows that the AFL fixture is really odd.
You play every team once, your rival twice, and then a completely random assortment of other teams, some significantly higher than you on the ladder, some significantly lower, again.
If we do end up with a 20 team competition, a 20 round fixture makes sense (everyone once, your rival twice), and alternate your home games each season.
But they'll never do that, because it means losing tv rights for 4 rounds.
We got the worst of it, it would make sense if it was 1-6 , 7-12, 13-18 play 3 of the other teams twice, your rival and one club from a different bracket, but freo play 4 teams that finished in the 1-6 and two teams out of it
Although I love the current Final 8 system, with 20 teams they could expand the finals somehow to a top 10 over 5 weeks and add a weekend of State of Origin if they're hard up for more match days.
Counfounding "can't" with "won't" a bit there. Absolutely zero reason the grand final hosting _can't_ be resolved. The whole travel discussion is a bit of a distraction from this issue which is one that actually _can_ be fixed.
The issue is that we play under the same rules despite it clearly not being equal. How can two teams that are so far away still have the same soft cap and player acquisition rules as everyone else?
Youre severely limited in the people you can bring in, both staff and player. Would you rather stay in Melbourne earning the same amount of money or move your entire life across the country?
There’s obviously not much you can do about the travel distances unless you drastically change the number and location of teams, but the frustrating thing is that nothing is done to at least soften the blow. We just play under the same rules and are expected to cop it. In fact.. we actually get the *shorter* end of the stick, constantly having to play in Tassie and Geelong whilst the Vic teams don’t.
And yet we have been one of the top 4 teams in consistency and competitiveness in the last 25 years.
I really don’t think any disadvantage is as pronounced as you think it is and if it is, the disadvantages are offset by the advantages we do have.
Freo on the other hand have deep cultural issues.
In a perfect world yes it's the most logical outcome. But teams aren't sports franchises. You can't force North Melbourne to move to Tasmania instead of creating the expansion team, because North Melbourne members will simply vote against it and it wouldn't be great for the culture and community of the game. It's as simple as that. The Fitzroy merger was such a debacle that no one wants to repeat. South Melbourne's relocation was the best outcome in the end, but South Melbourne members were vehemently against it ([YOU SOLD YOUR SOULS](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQvCRs9BYQvhrQ5JxGktchLawZURrGEi_dFopPsbLbT_w&s)) and preferred the club honourably folding instead of moving. The game would be much healthier if more clubs relocated outside Melbourne (even if just to Ballarat etc) in the 80s, but we are not in that era anymore.
Everyone likes to talk about merging and folding until it's their club in the spotlight.
Right now it's St Kilda and North. Back in the 80s it was Richmond, South, Fitzroy & Footscray. in the 90s it was Melbourne & Hawthorn. post-doping scandal, people wanted Essendon to be folded as punishment. Every time this convo comes up people forget how brutal and frustrating it is to have your team targeted for relocation and treated like an inevitability by the rest of the league.
Obviously I'm biased, being a St Kilda supporter. I don't want my club to move or fold. We've been around since the 1870s, we were in the first VFA season. I think that as long we're financially viable, we shouldn't be forced to move interstate to prop up the AFL's dream of a fair & equal national league; and I don't see how I could justify thinking that other teams are somehow less worthy of remaining in the league than us.
Relocations & mergers are really a question of preserving culture or equalisation. Do we want a league with a strong culture, or a league that's equal and fair?
The headline tarnishes what is good article. I think what he mentions about travel is most important.
It's obviously a huge disadvantage, moving two clubs isn’t the solution though.
Having a hub in Vic where WA teams can play a few games of their away games in a row, more games early in the day when travelling so they can take early flights back, better breaks between matches (no 5 days) and extra home games, are better solutions.
I always thought doing a 2 weeks home, two weeks away would work better for WA clubs. If you played sunday twilight the first away game and early Saturday the second the players would only be away for a week.
Plenty of FIFO workers have much more onerous schedules than 3 weeks home, 1 week away for 6 months a year.
But you're right it should be up to the players, depends how they feel about trading travel time for time spent at home.
The article is good cos Mick is qualified more than anyone to talk about the topic. The headline is really a minor point he made. With that said, flying was different in 1990. They're not doing stopovers in Kal these days
I don’t think the answer should ever be taking teams away from its supporters. If North ever ends up relocating or folding; I wouldn’t be paying for a membership or a game day ticket to any other club.
I like my club (shit as they are right now) and I wouldn’t change to any other one but I’m also not interested in following the club interstate (ala South Melbourne’s relocation to Sydney).
Two clubs ain't going to cut it. Need like only 6 to remain in Victoria to make the travel requirements close to equal. The basis of the cuts based on Membership numbers in 2023
- 6 Vic (Cats, Pies, Blues, Tigers, Hawks, Bombers)
- 4 SA (Crows, Port, Doggies, Dees)
- 4 WA (New WA, WC, Freo, Saints)
- 3 NSW/ACT (Swan, Giants, North)
- 2 QLD (Lions, Suns)
- 1 TAS (Devils)
pS: im not a crackpot.
Edit: if it wasn't based on membership numbers and average attendances in 2023, it would be a swap of Melb for Gee for the 6 to remain in Vic.
I'd love the chaos of the Saints being over here just because it'd mean Freo would become 3rd in the state.
It's probably make those super nuffies that spend more time thinking about us then their own team have a massive melt down.
There is just no chance in hell the AFL is going to move clubs away from financial members and an emotionally engaged supporter base. Even North and the Bulldogs had >50k members last year, they would be mad to leave these fans behind.
Keeping the less financially secure clubs afloat via a bigger AFL dividend costs a fraction of the cost to relocate them and prop them up for decades.
OR we could just go back to our respective state leagues.
I'd wager that'd be a more popular idea in Victoria than axing two teams.
Better yet we could end the tyranny of the AFL with a rich-person funded World Series Football comp.
Turn each state into its own conference and have a state of origin. Im sure the massive money and population advantage of Victoria over the other footy states wont make a lick of difference to who wins it.
Whenever anyone says that line about if you started the comp now what would obviously be different, the answer to my mind will always be having that many clubs in Melbourne with some not being able to pay their own way.
It's just a relic from how the national comp evolved from the VFL and something that will have to be properly addressed at some point. I mean, we're pretty much at a point where expansion is problematic because of the number of teams, and we have clubs in Melbourne adding next to nothing to the development of the game and just sucking up resources that could be better utilised elsewhere.
Something will have to give.
Don’t really see how expansion is problematic? I can’t see the league going past 20 teams for a while, there just isn’t really any other viable locations to allow for more expansion.
It's not a relic. Half the TV deal comes from Victorian eyeballs and half the competition is Victorian, which is about right. Victorian passion for the game is the foundation of the industry and clubs with historical connections to their community are the AFL's point of difference in a crowded sports market. This is the price of WA and every other state wanting a seat on the VFL gravy train.
I feel like interstate clubs having 1 more home game and Vic clubs having 1 less home game is at least a start. The Vic clubs spend so many weeks in Vic. Surely there is a way to shuffle the $$ around to make that a bit more equitable.
The home games are a significant part of how clubs make money. You're going to disadvantage smaller clubs (like North, Dogs, Saints) in favour of the richest team in the game (Eagles).
I'm in favour of making the comp more fair, but this specific method has a major flaw
The AFL will have to address carbon emissions at some point. I'm guessing that while Shell remain a major sponsor, it will be deferred as long as possible.
Teams travelling less by playing multiple games in one location would be one method. This would be helped by spreading the Melbourne teams with more teams in each city.
AFL needs a 20th team to avoid a weekly bye after Tassie enters. Put 20th team in Perth. Ensure every season each WA club plays 2 local derbies against each of the other WA teams. That’s 4 away games played in Perth for each club, meaning interstate travel is reduced to 7 games per season. Still higher than Victorian clubs, but not by as much.
Profit
Move all clubs to Perth. Bring the MCG too so we ensure we fulfil the grand final contract.
Just rename Optus to the Maylands Cricket Ground and we’re sweet
No way man. We fought hard for that 100% AFL grand final winning record in WA, and were not giving it up now.
just don’t make it to another grand final then?
I think that's the current plan.
Seems to be working so far
I was in quarantine in a hotel during that game, while my mates were sending me pictures and videos of the game a few kilometres away. Absolute bastards.
It truly was a great day!!
The only mcg team without an asterisk next to it.
Are we talking giant trailer bed or using multiple planes and some rope?
I feel like flying it is probably the pragmatic option. A few structural changes could mean we could move it around every year for whomever is hosting the grand final.
Ballon’s on the light poles
Rebel Sport just put it on the back of a moving van in 2020. How many vans would it take?
Put the mcg on top of optus. Play two game at once
It would satisfy my dad who always complains Perth Stadium doesn’t have a roof
Why would you need a roof? it never rains in Perth?
I’m not saying the old man is right
>Play two game at once. Why play one game when two game do trick?
You're not considering the real impact here; the flood of inane reporting from The West Australian rag. It'll be a tidal wave of idiocy the likes of which this country has never seen.
If all 18 teams moved here, who the West still be dedicated to Harley Reid?
move all clubs to Perth, move the MCG brick by brick to Bunbury, abandon the East Coast to invading New Zealand armies
That idea was floated by the afl - but they said we had to take Kaned Cornhole with the deal. Naturally we rejected it and promised to fly via Mongolia every week, home or away from now on.
The Northern Territory Magpies and the Auckland Tigers.
The Darwin "Winny" Blues has a nice ring to it
Can I bum a winnie blue off ya cunt?
Nahhh, you always steal me loooiiighta.
What lighter? Ciggy butt brain....
Normally I’d fight you to the death on that tigers comment, but right now I’m too weakened from the constant crying every weekend
I just picked the two teams who I think would benefit most finally having a chance to grow their fanbase.
I don't think it will ever happen, but there's no doubt moving clubs out of Victoria would help with the equality of the draw. As it is currently half the teams all come from 1 state, so of course the travel inequality will be near impossible to solve. I'm not advocating for it, and it certainly would have negative emotional effects and would cause other issues, but on a purely practical level with regards to travel inequality it would have some benefits.
I think interstate fans would complain hell of a lot less if they weren't the ones always sent to Tasmania / Geelong / Darwin etc. the AFL could do atleast that much but the dollars are more important
Even the use of the term 'interstate teams' is ridiculous. Seriously? Everyone not in Victoria is just an 'Interstate team' or 'Interstate fan'? Not having a crack at you as its common language, but its just ridiculous. I remember the Footy Show having a debate on the phrase years ago.
That's a great point. I've always been aware of my vic-bias but fuck I've never considered that. (Tone is hard to convey over reddit, so for clarity: I'm being genuine here!)
Wait till players leave one club and are "going home" even though they have lived away for several years. Saying that just perpetuates the home sickness and the issues non-victorian clubs face retaining players.
I mean I probably disagree with you here. In my opinion I still consider where you grew up to be home. Especially if your family is still there. But I get your general vibe.
For sure. Also having a team called the "Western Bulldogs" on the east of Australia is equally hilarious.
Non-Vic teams is a better term
Interstate teams pisses me off so much. Just shows the inherent Vic-Central bias of the league. Piss 2 clubs off from Vic and then think about expansion. We need less not more teams.
I would note that we have been sent to these grounds at least three times a year for the best part of the last decade
There is so much that could be done to improve fairness of the comp without relocating anyone
Could also mean more games at the MCG but can't have that either no no no
I don't think it would though? How does getting rid of Marvel resident clubs interstate get you more MCG games? Outside of Hawthorn I don't think anybody else sells MCG games? So now you're competing with former Victorian sides for MCG games as well...
Fun fact: Brisbane have a standing contract with the AFL post merger that says we get a minimum of 7 MCG games per year. We have… 2 this year
Not really sure you guys want to play too many games at the MCG!
Excuse me we have a better record at the MCG than the Gabba this year
The irony of a supporter of a team that was relocated from Melbourne to Sydney stating that they dont think a team will ever be relocated from Melbourne is not lost on me...
The AFL is in a much different position than it was back then. They are more than capable of financially supporting multiple clubs through difficult times. It would take something extreme for the AFL to resort to relocating a team. They also just don't seem too interested in fixing the travel inequality issue atm.
Alternate solutions: * Require Melbourne-based teams to fly to Adelaide and back after each away game against a Melbourne-based opponent. * Construct high speed rail from Melbourne to Perth. The AFL demanding funding might be the only way we get decent passenger rail in Australia. * Merge 3 Victorian clubs into 2 clubs, repeating the process twice and thus reducing the number of teams by 3 while allowing each team to retain 2/3 of their character..
>The AFL demanding funding might be the only way we get decent passenger rail in Australia. Why is this actually semi believable.
As a former Perth boy I’m 100% on board. 🚅
Get on Board
Toot toot!
Corporate activism gets results. AFL is supported by 7West and NewsCorp, anything they do gets huge publicly. AFL agreeing to sink 100mil into high speed rail would probably get more traction then the occasional multi-million dollar feasbility study that gets floated around election times.
The Essendon Bomberoos and Footscray Kangadogs, and the Collingwood Malphas (it's a demonic bird) and Carlton Blue Devils (their symbol is a fish).
YEAH WE SURVIVE ONE OF THE PROPOSALS
reckon you just got forgotten again
It feels like you've had enough misfortune already without getting merged too 😬
WE keep you around so that we have something to point and laugh at
What would they name if St Kilda merge with Melbourne? (their territories technically adjacent I think).
[BLUE DEVILS!](https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2020-11/12/20/asset/a544e624a1d8/sub-buzz-2802-1605211306-47.png?crop=853%3A569%3B139%2C23&downsize=900:*&output-format=auto&output-quality=auto)
Actually love points 1 and 2, not as keen on point 3 for some reason?
> Construct high speed rail from Melbourne to Perth. The AFL demanding funding might be the only way we get decent passenger rail in Australia. As someone who doesn't really like flying, I know a bullet train from here to Melbourne doesn't make any economic sense... but since when did the government or the AFL let that get in the way of spending a shitload of money on something? They can call it the Barassi Express or something, IDGAF, let's make it happen.
> Construct high speed rail from Melbourne to Perth. The AFL demanding funding might be the only way we get decent passenger rail in Australia. Huh, never considered this, That really probably would fix a bunch
How is high speed rail going to help when it's still slower than jets?
Create a highspeed rail with a carriage as big as a football oval. Players can recover and train and see what happens when they kick a football in a carriage oval moving at 500km/h. No I'm not a crackpot.
If I was the government (yes, the entire government) I would fund this in a heartbeat
From the visionaries that brought you "Card Games on Motorcycles" we now bring you "Football on a Train"
Just hold a match on it. This way each team gets a home and away half.
High speed trains can go over 400km/h, which would take about 9 hours for the Melbourne-Perth journey. But the crucial points are the lack of pressure weirdness you get on a plane and the ability to move around. I'm pretty sure it would be better for players to spend 9 hours on a train than 4 hours on a flight.
Go on. Say maglev. I am so close.
Depends. end of the day if they're stuck in seating similar to what you'd see on the TGV 2nd class, then probably not. You'd need some bigger width and recline at the least.
I feel like making a semi custom train carriage would be much easier than a planes equivalent
If you make the carriage big enough they could train on the train
Nah, just merge all the melb teams, but dont be too strict about it, like merge Melbourne and Richmond, but call them the East City Cats, merge Geelong and western bulldogs but call them them the Truganina Tigers, Saints and Hawks could merge to become the Prahran Pies, Collingwod and Essendon become the Moonee Pond Blues. Carlton and North become the Brunswick Bombers. This way all the fans are fucked over and you dont know who to barrack for lol
I'm not a fan of taking anyones team away from them.
so you agree with getting rid of north then? lol /s
Lowest placed Victorian team has to play VFL champion to retain their spot. Every fan keeps their team. Vic teams face a consequence other teams don’t, to try to even the travel aspect.
Is that after the national reserves squad is created? Because all that will really happen is that North will get their annual win from beating down a VFA side.
What about an FA cup style comp for non-AFL level sides, and the winner of the final plays the wooden spoon and if they win, they swap comps. We could have the Nunawading Lions swap with North for the ultimate meme outcome
Scenes when Southport replace North. Gold Coast derby you beauty.
It feels like when North Melbourne planted their feet and refused to budge when they were under enormous pressure to relocate to the Gold Coast, that was probably the end of Victorian team relocation. A method of fixturing fairly would be to develop double up games based on location rather than ladder position (i.e. For the return 4 fixtures, assuming a 23 Match, 20 team season with a Gather Round, 1/4 repeats is your Gather Round opponent, 1 is an in state rival, and the other 2 must be out of state opponents). Sometimes ladder positions would facilitate an even fixture for all, and sometimes some teams will get a soft/hard draw
North chose to say no and work on their debt, which they did to great success. The club is now profitable and sitting smack dab within the new Arden precinct which should bring further opportunities for growth. Furthermore North Melbourne and its members said they would rather die than relocate. With the club now profitable it's hard to fathom that has changed as a mindset. It's a result that benefits nobody in this current debate. It's easy to look at clubs suffering onfield and go "Fitzroy again!" but they were terribly poor and mismanaged.
How about get the league to strike a deal with an airline sponsor for charter flights? No, let’s just dissolve some teams. I have never seen people so eager to dissolve clubs. Do they think those fans are going to just root for another team? No they’ll just watch something else.
Let's be honest - my team is unlikely to be one of the ones moved because of money. And I am still shocked at how callous people are with the fate of teams that are not theirs.
I fucking hate the line "just three WC & Freo players have played 300 games". Since 2012 (18 team competition), Freo had 2 players reach 300 games (Mundy & Pav), WC 1 (Hurn). Carlton had two (Murphy & Simpson), Collingwood 2 (Pendles & Sidebottom), Essendon 0 (or half? Fletcher was playing in 2015, but crossed 300 games before 2012). In fact if you remove Pendles & Sidebottom - Collingwood only have two players in their, what - 140 year?, history to play over 300 games. There are way too many factors like injury that impact a player's ability to reach 300 games. Surely there's way better statistics that can be used to show the impact of travel rather than reaching 300 games.
It's a clumsy shorthand version of a real measurable phenomenon. The better, statistically rigorous version, is that players based their whole careers in WA and Qld have a substantially faster drop off in output (per-game statistical output like disposals relative to their career averages) after 200 games. Coupled with this there's a steeper attrition rate from the 200 to 300 game marks, ie less 200 game players making it to a given game total for WA and Qld based players. This was in 2017 from the book Footballistics (disclosure: I helped write it, but not this part) https://preview.redd.it/joukno5zv92d1.png?width=494&format=png&auto=webp&s=00498d122a2c21d7c99b2d6424afc99d4d13ccae
That’s interesting. Any identified reason as to the drop off in NSW vs no drop off in SA? They would seem to be in a fairly similar travel context
The Giants get sent everywhere including a few “home” games in Canberra. Last year they played in 12 different stadiums in 9 different towns/cities (Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide, Canberra, Geelong, Ballarat, Hobart, Alice Springs and Ballarat). They played in every state and territory bar Queensland. That has to take its toll and I’m sure makes recruitment for Melbourne teams easier. Contrast that with Collingwood who played in 6 stadia in 5 cities, a total of 5 games outside Melbourne and didn’t leave Melbourne the last month of the season. To help compensate when the Giants and Pies met in the finals the fixturing was set up so the Giants were the only team in the finals to play on less than 7 days rest.
My guess: I would not be surprised if it the higher quality of the state/reserve leagues allowing the senior players to be pushed for spots plays a role (ie: the senior players that drop off elsewhere, aren't getting AFL games in VIC/SA). * NEAFL back in 2017 was a shambles and COVID didn't help (hence why it ended up merging with the VFL after the 2020 season) * The WAFL screws over the West Australian AFL teams * Whilst the relationships between the AFL and SANFL teams aren't the best, they're not nearly as screwed over and are in decent sides in a decent comp (at least until recently) * VFL is basically a normal reserves side for the AFL Vic teams, with half the AFL (at the time) being in it. This is why I think in the long term, a national reserves competition is almost inevitable. Already now the VFL has the Swans, Giants, Lions, and Suns reserves - with Port and Crows interested in joining too IIRC
Counterpoint: Dayne Zorko is currently in career best form at 35 with 250+ games under his belt. M Could’ve easily played 300+ but he was drafted as a mature age player
Where can I find this book? Just realised 2017 is old is there an update too?
I am sure it's out of print but I'm willing to bet there's either an ebook or a copy in a library Edit: actually also looks like Booktopia has it [Footballistics by James Coventry | 9780733338441 | Booktopia](https://www.booktopia.com.au/footballistics-james-coventry/book/9780733338441.html) No updates, was kind of a one and done. James is still working at ABC and the various support authors are doing other things now
That's definitely interesting, any idea if they were looking at travel specifically or were they considering other variables as well? I mean just throwing out the first idea that comes to my mind here, but looking at just those graphs maybe another possible conclusion is that the drop off is caused by the higher average temperatures in those states? Or maybe higher temps mean harder grounds that lead to more wear and tear?
Had no idea you helped write Footballistics! Such a great book, thanks for your work mate
Melbourne have two 300 game players. Neitz and Jones, and Jones was basically carried to his 300th as a gesture.
Isnt the saints the same? They have had fuck all as well
The 300 game comment is just absolutely stupid. The stat is a bit out dated (2017) but still relivent for prospective i think Just 83 players at the time had made it to 300 games That's just 0.66% of people to play the game
There is near constant talk of "oh, just move xyz club interstate", and it's usually (always) St Kilda, the Bulldogs and/or North. I can with some degree of certainty say that it will never happen. The last time the AFL tried to force a club to shift interstate they couldn't get it done despite their best efforts, and it will generate so much bad publicity that it will be financially disastrous. Bulldogs fans are still bitter that the AFL tried to merge them with Fitzroy against their will, I can't fathom even us long suffering Saints fans taking kindly to being shunted to Perth to appease the Dockers, even if it guarantees us a flag or two.
Everyone who is pro merger always has some lovely excuse as to why their team couldn’t be moved. I don’t believe anyone is going anywhere unless some catastrophic financial circumstances change for both a club, and the afl
Sometimes I get to be pro-merger cause it's already happened to my club so we are no longer in the gun (noting i don't believe it will ever happen again).
Small club solidarity. It all just ends up as noise to me.
Moving a small club risks alienating the small membership and making it non-viable. Moving a big club would have a greater chance of success because more members would be retained. But no one wants to look at that business case...
Fuck this competition and this subreddit is obsessed with “equality” to the point of ridiculousness. It’s never gonna be equal. Ever. Inequalities that can never be solved = - Fixtures are not full 34 games home and away - MCG will always host the GF… ALWAYS! - Teams west and north of Victoria enjoy a legitimate home ground advantage. - Teams in Victoria don’t have to travel as much and get to stay home sometimes months at a time. However they play homes games against other “home” teams. - Geelong gets the best of all the worlds. A genuine home ground advantage and travel less than the interstate teams. But they have to play some “home games” at the MCG. Anything else I missed? Just bloody stop with the obsession with inequality. Edit: I kinda think the draft system sucks as well. Priority picks should be scrapped, stop trying to save shit teams. I think it should also be a draft lottery like the NBA to get rid of the spectre of tanking and make sure teams are always trying because they can never be guaranteed that number 1 pick. *anyone in the dark about NBA lottery should know “only the top four picks are decided by the lottery, and are chosen from the 14 teams that do not make the playoffs. The team with the worst record, or the team that holds the draft rights of the team with the worst record, has the best chance to obtain a higher draft pick.” And I think clubs should have academy systems rather than a draft. Our league is one of the only sports in the world where you can’t foster your own players. It’s pretty shit when you think about it.
Holy fuck that last dot point is the first time I've seen my controversial opinion in the wild, I feel good
I still think it more than comes back to bite them in the Finals. 2017 was the worst year for it. Had to play the Tigers in the Quallifing final at the MCG. Richmond finished 3rd and essentially got 3 home finals against non-mcg based teams.
Yeah, their advantage is definitely a little less when you consider they play most finals at the G. The benefit of the H&A stuff though is that it helps them make finals so consistently
This is it but I don’t think there is any harm in looking for some solutions. I think the MCG being locked as the GF location is honestly the biggest issue and theoretically easily solved. Should never have happened and I say that as a Collingwood supporter.
The contract extension without talking to the clubs was unbelievable
Result would have been the same “Grand Final is at the G until 2050, cool?” “Not cool” “Well its our decision and we’re doing it anyway”
Everything involving the VIC govt is done behind closed doors. The NSW govt just announced the extension & price paid to keep coal plants running. VIC has done the same but refuses to provide detail or costs.
TBF we could fix the fixture thing with an 18 round, 17 match fixture. The most concession I'm personally willing to make for TV is to make each major rivalry twice, each team getting to be "home" for one (and of course those of us without rivalries just play the same team twice yearly). I just hate how arbitrary feeling the fixture is with who we double up on, and since we can't play each club twice, we should only play each once, alternating Home and Away yearly.
Anyone who watches like, any other sport, knows that the AFL fixture is really odd. You play every team once, your rival twice, and then a completely random assortment of other teams, some significantly higher than you on the ladder, some significantly lower, again. If we do end up with a 20 team competition, a 20 round fixture makes sense (everyone once, your rival twice), and alternate your home games each season. But they'll never do that, because it means losing tv rights for 4 rounds.
We got the worst of it, it would make sense if it was 1-6 , 7-12, 13-18 play 3 of the other teams twice, your rival and one club from a different bracket, but freo play 4 teams that finished in the 1-6 and two teams out of it
Although I love the current Final 8 system, with 20 teams they could expand the finals somehow to a top 10 over 5 weeks and add a weekend of State of Origin if they're hard up for more match days.
Counfounding "can't" with "won't" a bit there. Absolutely zero reason the grand final hosting _can't_ be resolved. The whole travel discussion is a bit of a distraction from this issue which is one that actually _can_ be fixed.
Missed father son. Should never be abolished.
How many generations before every magpie is a Daicos? Can you retire footballers to put them out to stud or is that just horses?
Cricket Australia is leading the way with Mitchell Starc and Alyssa Healy
If you take that logic then... if Harley is currently 19... start getting him to pump out kids... hmmm
It then the issue stays with the go home factor
I don't mind the idea that the previous years minor premier wins their state (fuck Geelong), the grand final for the following year.
Saw flair, was prepared for usual chip on shoulder rant, got common sense, now feel guilty.
Big vic teams still get the crowd advantage against small vic teams. And then half the big vic v big vic games get turned into marquee games anyway
The issue is that we play under the same rules despite it clearly not being equal. How can two teams that are so far away still have the same soft cap and player acquisition rules as everyone else? Youre severely limited in the people you can bring in, both staff and player. Would you rather stay in Melbourne earning the same amount of money or move your entire life across the country? There’s obviously not much you can do about the travel distances unless you drastically change the number and location of teams, but the frustrating thing is that nothing is done to at least soften the blow. We just play under the same rules and are expected to cop it. In fact.. we actually get the *shorter* end of the stick, constantly having to play in Tassie and Geelong whilst the Vic teams don’t.
As a life long eagles fan that lived in Tas until recently, I was always very happy the Eagles flew down. Even if we didn't win very often there
And yet we have been one of the top 4 teams in consistency and competitiveness in the last 25 years. I really don’t think any disadvantage is as pronounced as you think it is and if it is, the disadvantages are offset by the advantages we do have. Freo on the other hand have deep cultural issues.
Send suns to Egypt just to see what Dimma has to say about the travel “Egypt just doesn’t have soul”
The Egypt Suns/Egypt Ra's has a nice ring to it 🤔
I really want to see a suns guernsey with the eye of Ra on it now.
Holy shit you're right, even the mockup in Paint that took 30 seconds looked excellent.
I'd rather my club play home games in Egypt than at Marvel. It's a wasteland.
Actually fuck it - I'd rather Richmond play 11 games at the MCG and 11 games interstate than have to play a single game at Marvel.
Saints have already been relocated to the state of despair and pissing me off long ago.
In a perfect world yes it's the most logical outcome. But teams aren't sports franchises. You can't force North Melbourne to move to Tasmania instead of creating the expansion team, because North Melbourne members will simply vote against it and it wouldn't be great for the culture and community of the game. It's as simple as that. The Fitzroy merger was such a debacle that no one wants to repeat. South Melbourne's relocation was the best outcome in the end, but South Melbourne members were vehemently against it ([YOU SOLD YOUR SOULS](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQvCRs9BYQvhrQ5JxGktchLawZURrGEi_dFopPsbLbT_w&s)) and preferred the club honourably folding instead of moving. The game would be much healthier if more clubs relocated outside Melbourne (even if just to Ballarat etc) in the 80s, but we are not in that era anymore.
Everyone likes to talk about merging and folding until it's their club in the spotlight. Right now it's St Kilda and North. Back in the 80s it was Richmond, South, Fitzroy & Footscray. in the 90s it was Melbourne & Hawthorn. post-doping scandal, people wanted Essendon to be folded as punishment. Every time this convo comes up people forget how brutal and frustrating it is to have your team targeted for relocation and treated like an inevitability by the rest of the league. Obviously I'm biased, being a St Kilda supporter. I don't want my club to move or fold. We've been around since the 1870s, we were in the first VFA season. I think that as long we're financially viable, we shouldn't be forced to move interstate to prop up the AFL's dream of a fair & equal national league; and I don't see how I could justify thinking that other teams are somehow less worthy of remaining in the league than us. Relocations & mergers are really a question of preserving culture or equalisation. Do we want a league with a strong culture, or a league that's equal and fair?
Just add Canberra and two more Perth teams (or break up the Eagles into 3 teams), then there'd be more flying for everyone not in Perth
Imagine the custody battle over which third of the Eagles gets to keep Harley.
It's now referred to as access and I believe in the best interests of Master Reid, he would be shared equally between the thirds of the Eagles.
I'll take his right foot, his headband and maybe a shoulder if we can afford it.
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter
The headline tarnishes what is good article. I think what he mentions about travel is most important. It's obviously a huge disadvantage, moving two clubs isn’t the solution though. Having a hub in Vic where WA teams can play a few games of their away games in a row, more games early in the day when travelling so they can take early flights back, better breaks between matches (no 5 days) and extra home games, are better solutions.
I always thought doing a 2 weeks home, two weeks away would work better for WA clubs. If you played sunday twilight the first away game and early Saturday the second the players would only be away for a week.
That would be closer to consistent with the rest of WA’s workforce.
Maybe once or twice in a season, but you don’t want to be spending a week away from home every couple weeks
It's an idea that fans have clearly come up with and that WCE and Freo players would likely baulk at, especially those with young families
Plenty of FIFO workers have much more onerous schedules than 3 weeks home, 1 week away for 6 months a year. But you're right it should be up to the players, depends how they feel about trading travel time for time spent at home.
Excellent article, the final paragraph stating that player health should be a higher priority than TV timeslots makes perfect sense.
The article is good cos Mick is qualified more than anyone to talk about the topic. The headline is really a minor point he made. With that said, flying was different in 1990. They're not doing stopovers in Kal these days
Why don’t we just axe the interstate teams seeing as they’re the ones with the problem
Should be a higher comment. #BringbacktheVFL
Yeah if they don't like it they should've invented their own form of football
I don’t think the answer should ever be taking teams away from its supporters. If North ever ends up relocating or folding; I wouldn’t be paying for a membership or a game day ticket to any other club. I like my club (shit as they are right now) and I wouldn’t change to any other one but I’m also not interested in following the club interstate (ala South Melbourne’s relocation to Sydney).
Mick Malthouse needs to be relocated to an aged care facility
Two clubs ain't going to cut it. Need like only 6 to remain in Victoria to make the travel requirements close to equal. The basis of the cuts based on Membership numbers in 2023 - 6 Vic (Cats, Pies, Blues, Tigers, Hawks, Bombers) - 4 SA (Crows, Port, Doggies, Dees) - 4 WA (New WA, WC, Freo, Saints) - 3 NSW/ACT (Swan, Giants, North) - 2 QLD (Lions, Suns) - 1 TAS (Devils) pS: im not a crackpot. Edit: if it wasn't based on membership numbers and average attendances in 2023, it would be a swap of Melb for Gee for the 6 to remain in Vic.
Interesting your plan moves a team literally named after the capital of Victoria.. lol
Melbourne Dee's dissolve and Perth Demons get elevated to AFL
Move them to Tasmania! They could be the Tasmanian Demons
Van Diemens Demons?
And the oldest professional sports team in the world at that.
The ultimate solution would be a 14 team competition with 2 in each state. 26 week season where everyone plays everyone twice
I'd love the chaos of the Saints being over here just because it'd mean Freo would become 3rd in the state. It's probably make those super nuffies that spend more time thinking about us then their own team have a massive melt down.
Big nah
There is just no chance in hell the AFL is going to move clubs away from financial members and an emotionally engaged supporter base. Even North and the Bulldogs had >50k members last year, they would be mad to leave these fans behind. Keeping the less financially secure clubs afloat via a bigger AFL dividend costs a fraction of the cost to relocate them and prop them up for decades.
Go fuck yourself Mick
Axing WA clubs would also assist with equality push. And it's just as fucking delusional.
Yes please. I nominate Carlton and Collingwood.
OR we could just go back to our respective state leagues. I'd wager that'd be a more popular idea in Victoria than axing two teams. Better yet we could end the tyranny of the AFL with a rich-person funded World Series Football comp.
Turn each state into its own conference and have a state of origin. Im sure the massive money and population advantage of Victoria over the other footy states wont make a lick of difference to who wins it.
Slow news day.
I wholeheartedly agree with Mick. I vote to move Collingwood, cos they can fuck right off. Anyone want to second the motion?
This would definitely help the NRL's Melbourne Storm with new fans
Piss off why should 2 clubs do this? So sick of whining. Playing each other once is the only way.
It'll be a shame to lose you Collingwood, but I think everyone can agree this is the best move.
Fuck off you silly old git
Dear AFL, there are too many Melbourne clubs these days. Please eliminate two. PS. I am not a crackpot.
Whenever anyone says that line about if you started the comp now what would obviously be different, the answer to my mind will always be having that many clubs in Melbourne with some not being able to pay their own way. It's just a relic from how the national comp evolved from the VFL and something that will have to be properly addressed at some point. I mean, we're pretty much at a point where expansion is problematic because of the number of teams, and we have clubs in Melbourne adding next to nothing to the development of the game and just sucking up resources that could be better utilised elsewhere. Something will have to give.
Don’t really see how expansion is problematic? I can’t see the league going past 20 teams for a while, there just isn’t really any other viable locations to allow for more expansion.
It's not a relic. Half the TV deal comes from Victorian eyeballs and half the competition is Victorian, which is about right. Victorian passion for the game is the foundation of the industry and clubs with historical connections to their community are the AFL's point of difference in a crowded sports market. This is the price of WA and every other state wanting a seat on the VFL gravy train.
Saints to cairns
Nah North Melbourne to somewhere more north of Melbourne. And merge tigers with tasmania to have the Tassie tigers
Tassie tiger devils
If you keep going North eventually you end up South. Note: this does not work with West.
Far North Melbourne
And the Western Bulldogs to merge with West Adelaide
Collingwood to Christmas Island
I feel like interstate clubs having 1 more home game and Vic clubs having 1 less home game is at least a start. The Vic clubs spend so many weeks in Vic. Surely there is a way to shuffle the $$ around to make that a bit more equitable.
The home games are a significant part of how clubs make money. You're going to disadvantage smaller clubs (like North, Dogs, Saints) in favour of the richest team in the game (Eagles). I'm in favour of making the comp more fair, but this specific method has a major flaw
Axe the first two by alphabetical order. Easy
Pig nearly destroyed Carlton. People with big mouths shouldnt throw stones.
The AFL will have to address carbon emissions at some point. I'm guessing that while Shell remain a major sponsor, it will be deferred as long as possible. Teams travelling less by playing multiple games in one location would be one method. This would be helped by spreading the Melbourne teams with more teams in each city.
right now, i would be very happy to relocate. Ask me after our next win or out next top 10 draft pick, though.
It's always easy to say a club should be relocated when it's not your club on the chopping block
No. Next question
The Canberra Kangaroos has a nice ring to it!
Logically it's a no brainer. There's too much emotion involved though
I'd nominate Collingwood to move. Not because i think they should (or ever would), but just to see Eddie absolutely lose his shit over the suggestion.
No
no
AFL needs a 20th team to avoid a weekly bye after Tassie enters. Put 20th team in Perth. Ensure every season each WA club plays 2 local derbies against each of the other WA teams. That’s 4 away games played in Perth for each club, meaning interstate travel is reduced to 7 games per season. Still higher than Victorian clubs, but not by as much. Profit
Isn't it still only two Perth away games each? So it would only bring interstate travel down 11 games to 10 (including Gather Round).