Do you want an AFL night Grand Final?

783 Views 19 Replies 12 Participants Last post by sakor1, Mar 27, 2005

OzAsian

Discussion Starter · Mar 20, 2005

Looks like as part of the new TV rights deal that the AFL is prepared to give up the Day GF as part of the bargaining chip to get more coverage in NSW and QLD.
What do you think is the best time for the GF?

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

rondeez

· #2 · Mar 20, 2005

the NRL has had the grand final at night for the past 2 years.

The atmosphere at night is way better i reckon!
But then tradition is thrown out the window!

dynamoultraclean

· #3 · Mar 20, 2005

Day all the way. Night is not right. - Anonymous, 2005.

PORSCHE 911 TURBO

· #4 · Mar 20, 2005

They should have a shot at a night GF and see how it works.

sakor1

· #5 · Mar 20, 2005

No, sorry. I think we have already given up so much AFL (VFL) tradition... I really think the GF should stay a day game on that last Saturday in September!

Stu

sirhc8

· #6 · Mar 20, 2005

I voted night without thinking it through. I'd change my vote to day if I could.
A night grand final isn't going to be any more popular in NSW/QLD than a day game if that's part of the justification.
As far as the NRL example goes, you can't compare the two. Rugby League has been butchered so much over the past decade that a night final isn't such a big deal.
There's so little tradition left in most sports it would be a shame to let this one slip.

Citystyle

· #7 · Mar 22, 2005

sakor1 said:
No, sorry. I think we have already given up so much AFL (VFL) tradition... I really think the GF should stay a day game on that last Saturday in September!

Stu

SHUT UP! :bash:

VFL is hardley in relation to the AFL remember the VFL teams lost to SA and WA so :bash:. I say cut all the vic teams and put three teams a state, add tasmania and northern territory, thats the (AFL'S) aim.

sakor1

· #8 · Mar 24, 2005

Citystyle said:
SHUT UP! :bash:

VFL is hardley in relation to the AFL remember the VFL teams lost to SA and WA so :bash:. I say cut all the vic teams and put three teams a state, add tasmania and northern territory, thats the (AFL'S) aim.

What relevance does Vic losing to SA or WA have?? The reason I refer to AFL/ VFL is, whether you like it or not, that the national League developed from the Victorian league, and thus maintained many of its traditions.... it's not as if I was having a go at the WAFL or SANFL or anything, they are great traditional leagues in their own right...

But I must disagree with what you have suggested. Crowds would suffer as would support for the league, and many clubs would fail as I don't think that WA or SA have enough interest, or the population base, to fully support 3 teams at the moment. NSW and QLD definately do not have the support for three teams each. I could see a possible future league as follows though:

VIC- 8 Teams (Carl, Coll, Ess, Gee, Haw, Melb, StK, Rich) (WB and Kangas seem most likely to fold)
SA- 2 Teams (Adelaide, Port)
WA- 2 Teams (Freo, WCE)
NSW- 2 Teams (Sydney, Central coast (or perhaps an ACT team)
QLD- 2 Teams (Brisbane, North QLD)
TAS- 1 Team (Tasmania, home games rotate b/w Hobat and Launceston)
NT- 1 Team (Northern Territory)
TOTAL= 18 Teams

Just my opinion on how it might happen. I am all for the national code but it would be infeasible to have the 3 teams a state given support.

Stu

See less See more

tayser

· #9 · Mar 24, 2005

^ I pretty much agree with the distribution apart from Victoria, there's still too many: I reckon get rid of Richmond, St. Kilda and Hawthorn as well,

fob one extra team to WA and SA, and give Canberra a team, shit after all, half the bureaucrats up there are from AFL states, easily support one.

or just kill off two Victorian teams and send the third to the ACT.

VIC: Melbourne, Essendon, Carlton, Collingwood, Geelong
WA: West Coast, Fremantle, [insert Perth 'burb/WAFL club here]
SA: Adelaide, Port Adelaide, [insert Adelaide 'burb/SAFL club here]
NSW: Sydney, Western Sydney ( :lol: )
QLD, Brisbane, Gold Coast ( more Vic / AFL state ex-pats in this area than any other in QLD, wouldn't you think?)
TAS: Tassie Tigers
ACT: Canberra Saints ( nothing saintly bout Canberra! :lol: )
NT: Territory Hawks

See less See more

sakor1

· #10 · Mar 24, 2005

Do you really think the SA and WA markets could support another team though? I'm not convinced.

Stu

jacobsian

· #11 · Mar 24, 2005

sakor1 said:
the national League developed from the Victorian league, and thus maintained many of its traditions....

As a South Australian, I understand this. However the point we've never been able to communicate to you guys effectively is that because our own league was essentially destroyed by the AFL (dropped attendance, little media coverage, playing standards dropped, merged clubs) we don't actually give a shit if one tiny bit of tradition goes on your end. We sacrificed so much here in WA and SA to make this national comp work, and in return we get nothing but disrespect. Crap about how our AFL sides have no tradition (get over it, we did), unfair finals system, a CBF system that strips our profits to keep the 10 Vic clubs alive while SANFL/WAFL clubs have their arses pinned against the wall. Did you know the Perth Demons actually had to sell their NAME to a naming rights sponsor just to stay alive? We've given so much on our end, and it's about time Victoria did the same.

See less See more

jacobsian

· #12 · Mar 24, 2005

tayser said:
SA: Adelaide, Port Adelaide, [insert Adelaide 'burb/SAFL club here]

If the crows hadn't been formed, I would've expected Port, Norwood and Sturt all to be able to make it to the AFL. Port and Norwood are the 2 traditionally large clubs, while Sturt/Port used to be a massive rivalry - crowds of up to 70,000 at their games in the late 70's!

Norwood and Sturt attempted a merger to get Adelaide's second AFL license ahead of port.

Also the Central District football club has large levels of support, but they're from the same area as Port Power supporters so it wouldn't work too well. If Central were in the AFL though, everyone would finally learn what atmosphere is! Many members of their cheersquad (esp in finals) are from the barmy army.

BrizzyChris

· #13 · Mar 25, 2005

Day games are better.

cammo2004

· #14 · Mar 26, 2005

sakor1 said:
No, sorry. I think we have already given up so much AFL (VFL) tradition... I really think the GF should stay a day game on that last Saturday in September!

Stu

I doubt the 'Saturday in September' thing would change. It's just whether it's a day or night game. Sunday's the traditional day/night for NRL I believe.

It's definitely worth a shot. If it doesn't work, shove it back to the day. But it's better off if we know.

Sydney can support two teams. If we have 4.2 million people living here, I think we can support two AFL teams.

sakor1

· #15 · Mar 26, 2005

cammo2004 said:
I doubt the 'Saturday in September' thing would change. It's just whether it's a day or night game. Sunday's the traditional day/night for NRL I believe.

It's definitely worth a shot. If it doesn't work, shove it back to the day. But it's better off if we know.

Sydney can support two teams. If we have 4.2 million people living here, I think we can support two AFL teams.

It is not a matter of population, but as I said, support. Sydney is a Rugby dominated market (both codes), and the Swans I think are often lucky to get the crowds they get. Two teams I don't think are sustainable with the current level of support, maybe in the future though... just my two cents.

Stu

sirhc8

· #16 · Mar 27, 2005

sakor1 said:
It is not a matter of population, but as I said, support. Sydney is a Rugby dominated market (both codes), and the Swans I think are often lucky to get the crowds they get. Two teams I don't think are sustainable with the current level of support, maybe in the future though... just my two cents.

Stu

2 Sydney teams are definitely not sustainable at the moment however the current team is quite strong.
"the Swans I think are often lucky to get the crowds they get" doesn't really make a lot of sense though. They have about 25,000 members hence there average crowds are usually just below 30,000.
The games at Telstra get larger crowds because they are against the bigger teams and have far more marketing.

Aussie Steve

· #17 · Mar 27, 2005

YES!

sakor1

· #18 · Mar 27, 2005

sirhc8 said:
2 Sydney teams are definitely not sustainable at the moment however the current team is quite strong.
"the Swans I think are often lucky to get the crowds they get" doesn't really make a lot of sense though. They have about 25,000 members hence there average crowds are usually just below 30,000.
The games at Telstra get larger crowds because they are against the bigger teams and have far more marketing.

True that. But I'm sure of the fact that at least in the short-term, despite its population, Sydney would not be able to back a 2nd AFL team. The Swannies do alright for themselves though

Stu

sirhc8

· #19 · Mar 27, 2005

sakor1 said:
True that. But I'm sure of the fact that at least in the short-term, despite its population, Sydney would not be able to back a 2nd AFL team. The Swannies do alright for themselves though

Stu

Yeah, this talk of Western Sydney being a base for a second team is ridiculous at the moment. Western Sydney is Rugby League heartland, if they want to get AFL going there, it'll have to be a generational thing rather than trying to convert current league supporters.

sakor1

· #20 · Mar 27, 2005

Exactly!!! Which is why the AFL are pumping so many resources into Auskick clinics, game ambassadors, etc in NSW and QLD. They are certainly going about it the right way, but it is a generational change they have to go for, start young.

Stu

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.