rcon wrote:David wrote:WE (we being Adelaide, Port, Fremantle, West Coast, Brisbane) joined THEIR competition. It's evolved, and changed over time, but it still has it's relevant and acknowledged history.
/argument.
i agree that the vfl history is relevant that is obvious, but i still have a problem with things from the 30's being counted as "AFL" records, because it inherently means hat western australian and south australian history is less important.
yes, there are more clubs from victoria, and yes, originally the interstate clubs joined the vfl, but NOW it is the AFL, not the VFL, and as such i think there should be a differentiation.
that doesnt mean that the VFL history should be erased, and it doesn't mean that melbourne can't say that they have ever won a premiership, but it does mean that the league will continue to be victoria centric.
ok, i have another question for you guys that i think is interesting
how many teams do you think will be in the afl in 20/50/whatever years time?
personally, i think there will eventually be 20 teams.
tasmania certainly has to have a team at some stage, it is a tradgedy that they dont. i can see this being a relocated team. someone like north melbourne. at present they are really cash strapped and are relying on emotion and tin rattling to survive. there will come a time in the future where they will either have the option to merge, move or fold, and i think they will have to move.
the next one is probably pie in the sky stuff, but i can also eventually see a team play out of darwin, or possibly darwin and north queensland combined. i reckon that would be great for the competition, but i am not sure how profitable they would be. that is probably a long way down the track but i think it would be awesome. it would mean that we would have a truly, truly national competition. (exception is canberra, but GWS and the bulldogs will/are already playing a few games out of there so that could continue)
