Relegation: good thing or bad thing?

[morgieb]

How come South Melbourne got moved and Fitzroy merged then? Serious question.

I'd find it very doubtful the respective members of the clubs would've voted for the either. Turkeys, Christmas, etc

Fitzroy were actually looking for a merger with North Melbourne iirc, but the other clubs didn't want it. They ended up in administration by

As for South Melbourne, iirc it was a personal choice.

Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

 

[Burgey]

all fights should end with oportos. And then ***.

+1

 

[Ausage]

All fights should end with Oportos. And then ***.

But especially Oportos.

 

[benchmark00]

How come South Melbourne got moved and Fitzroy merged then? Serious question.

I'd find it very doubtful the respective members of the clubs would've voted for the either. Turkeys, Christmas, etc

Back then, as I understand, clubs had a different structure in as much as they didn't have the power to vote on their future. Since then clubs have restructured and most are owned by the members. Fitzroy was a little different because they couldn't meet their obligations in the near future so had to merge, which was a more amicable outcome than South Melbourne faced, who were literally obliterated.

So when a Sydney sider is actually making an effort to learn about your sport you act like a **** to them?

If someone with no knowledge of the game is willing to learn the sport I will have no hesitation in encouraging. I help coach a team in Wollongong ffs, most of them have absolutely no experience in footy.

With people who merely wish to call it Gay FL because theyre ignorant, I will not web bother. It's their loss.

 

[Ausage]

If someone with no knowledge of the game is willing to learn the sport I will have no hesitation in encouraging. I help coach a team in Wollongong ffs, most of them have absolutely no experience in footy.

With people who merely wish to call it Gay FL because theyre ignorant, I will not web bother. It's their loss.

So why would Sydneysiders cheering "go Goodsey" or "Jack 4 brwnlow" annoy you? They're obviously trying to learn and accept your sport.

You get people like that at Swans games, giving you a serve because you don't understand the game as well as they do. Got told to **** off back to thugby once or twice. ****ing dire.

 

[Burgey]

Back then, as I understand, clubs had a different structure in as much as they didn't have the power to vote on their future. Since then clubs have restructured and most are owned by the members. Fitzroy was a little different because they couldn't meet their obligations in the near future so had to merge, which was a more amicable outcome than South Melbourne faced, who were literally obliterated.


If someone with no knowledge of the game is willing to learn the sport I will have no hesitation in encouraging. I help coach a team in Wollongong ffs, most of them have absolutely no experience in footy.

With people who merely wish to call it Gay FL because theyre ignorant, I will not web bother. It's their loss.

Who's done that here though?

 

[morgieb]

Who's done that here though?

People used to, but as Kyle got a job and is less active and Fitzy left, most Aussies like AFL here.

 

[Burgey]

People used to, but as Kyle got a job and is less active and Fitzy left, most Aussies like AFL here.

Ah I see.

 

[Ausage]

People used to, but as Kyle got a job and is less active and Fitzy left, most Aussies like AFL here.

Dire. Getting a job should make you MORE active.

 

[vic_orthdox]

By any objective measure, leagues with a salary cap are no more or less competitive than those that have none. There's just no empirical evidence to suggest that it helps unless you cherry-pick examples.

There's an argument for having one on principle but the liberal in me finds it rather offensive. Something's strange about benchy being the guy pushing the idea.

Depends on your definition of competitive.

French League winners:

1993: Marseille
1994: Paris St Germain
1995: Nantes
1996: Auxerre
1997: Monaco
1998: Lens
1999: Bordeaux
2000: Monaco
2001: Nantes
2002: Lyon
2003: Lyon
2004: Lyon
2005: Lyon
2006: Lyon
2007: Lyon
2008: Lyon
2009: Bordeaux
2010: Marseille
2011: Lille

Excluding Lyon's dominance, that's a pretty competitive league without salary capping.

"So, if you take away all the scores that Bradman made a hundred, he only averages..."

So basically the AFL gets away with treating its players like **** because they're the only show in town?

Not really, there's very few players who, if they want to leave a club, don't get their way.

Rubbish. What would you consider "cherry picking examples"? What would you consider objective measures?

In the last 12 years the NRL has had 10 different winners of the competition, with all but 3 of the teams in the league making a grand final. IIRC the AFL is less even, but there's still been far greater diversity of teams challenging for top honors than any european football league you'd like to mention.

I think that since Port Adelaide came into the competition (1997), every team has made the top 4 in the AFL.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Super League teams are effectively franchises now. It did away with promotion and relegation three years ago.

The SL franchises are only awarded for three years tho, so teams from outside aren't totally cut adrift. Widnes (traditionally one of the big teams) have been awarded one for 2012, actually so at least one of the current SL teams will miss out. Probably the Crusaders, if there's any justice. Worthwhile experiment taking the pro game to Wales, but badly handled from the outset and they're currently in administration.

Be interesting to know anyone's thoughts on a draft versus not having one too. Obviously one of the big differences between the way the NRL & AFL are set up. I'm instinctively anti, it seems to remove the possibility of kids coming through the ranks at a club (fans over here at least generally have greater soft spots for their team's own products), but I suppose it's a way of ensuring an even spread of talent.

There is no "own product" now, the clubs in the early-90s didn't want to use their resources on U/19 (and then U/18) football. Also stops tapping up of young kids from different places/states, like you see in Rugby League, which I personally find a bit undesirable.

At the end of the day, in football, success breeds success. Obviously there are teams with manufactured wealth, but teams like Liverpool, Man U and Arsenal have more money because over the history of football they have made themselves into winners.

Liverpool had money in the 70s and 80s, and United in the 90s and 00s but both clubs' success was built on much more than that. It's off-hand to put it all down to money. The main reason English football has seen few title winners in the global era is because of United, who built their success on a solid youth policy and earned their money from having a bigger fanbase than any other club, even after 26 years without a title. To equalise the wealth of clubs like these and Arsenal would be preposterous when it is money they have spent over a century acquiring in many ways - and the foundation of it is sporting. People all around the world don't support these clubs because they're rich but because they're successful. The foundation of their wealth is success. The success obviously breeds further wealth., so it is a cycle. But they've earned that right.

Your Chelsea/Man City is obviously different. I wouldn't actually be surprised if regulations were brought in sooner rather than later that made a billionaire owner less of an advantage. Dunno what, though.

Think that's really the same in any sport, and at most levels. Clubs keep those successful people around in other roles, and provide that knowledge and expectation of success which is infectious.

 

[GIMH]

Eh why did you quote me

 

[vic_orthdox]

Eh why did you quote me

You saying that "in football, success breeds success". I'm saying that it's not just something apparent in football, it relates to any sport and at different levels of it, amateur or professional.

Maybe it's a little more exacerbated in football because it allows you to produce more money, through revenue and higher valued players, but just pointing out that it's not solely a football phenomenon.

EDIT: realised that I hadn't made my edit when you probably posted that. Accidentally hit submit before I wrote about your post that I quoted.

 

[Burgey]

A hard fought, one point win to the Sydney franchise today

 

[Jono]

Was full of the South Melbourne spirit I thought. Like the 'Bloods' of old.

 

[GIMH]

You saying that "in football, success breeds success". I'm saying that it's not just something apparent in football, it relates to any sport and at different levels of it, amateur or professional.

Maybe it's a little more exacerbated in football because it allows you to produce more money, through revenue and higher valued players, but just pointing out that it's not solely a football phenomenon.

EDIT: realised that I hadn't made my edit when you probably posted that. Accidentally hit submit before I wrote about your post that I quoted.

Ah yeah, fair point. I definitely didn't intend to suggest that wasn't the case in other sports, but I think that there is a basic misunderstanding from some people of how Liverpool, Man U and Arsenal have come to be successful clubs.

They were the biggest clubs in England long before money was as prevalent as it is now.

 

[Burgey]

Was full of the South Melbourne spirit I thought. Like the 'Bloods' of old.

What or who are the Bloods?

 

[Furball]

"So, if you take away all the scores that Bradman made a hundred, he only averages..."

lol, wasn't my point. My point was that the French league has been very competitive without any need for a salary cap or any of the other bollocks benchy thinks football needs.

Even Lyon's dominance is a prime example of why money doesn't matter as much as you might think. Lyon were dominant because for a 7 year period they spent their money in a much smarter fashion than anyone else in France. Lyon historically are neither big nor rich.

 

[keeper]

Definite yes for promotion and relegation in most circumstances.

Definite no for wage cap - at least in English football where it didn't particularly add much when it was the rule. However, definitely needs financial regulation of some sort. UEFA's ideas look good on paper but suspect they'll be easy to circumnavigate. Even if they work I don't suppose it will reverse the gentrification of the game.

 

[Furball]

Worth pointing out that 7 of Barcelona's starting lineup are products of their youth system (would have been 8 if Puyol had started).