Yes you are fundamentally correct though there has been the exception of the mighty Brisbane Lions (my team:bowdown:). This is IMO because the cap, draft etc makes it difficult for teams to get hold of all the best players who are evenly spread among the teams. For example the star players rarely leave the clubs they play for. There are exceptions of course but Jon Brown the Lions star player is a Lion for life and idolised by the supporters. He would get the Lions share of the money, say $800,000 a season out of the salary cap of $8,000,000. Chicken **** money I know in comparison to Football but the comp could not afford to be a free for all. The clubs, the players the administration and the supporters know it. There is the odd grumble but the system is rigidly stuck to. Also the clubs have to have a minimum amount of players on there roster, 42 I think, so they then have to be very clever in how they spread the readies around.

I love both football and Rules and am loathe to want either to change the way things are done. It is easy for Rules to have caps and drafts. They so not have to compete with other countries for players and audience's. Even the game played at the Oval is just a game to let Expat Aussies living in the UK an excuse to get pissed:D


The clubs in AFL are very much established. Melbourne Demons for example have been established since 1858. Most of the Melbourne teams have a very long history. With the establishment of a national comp there is no doubt that the Perth clubs and the Crows in Adelaide are "newer". Port Adelaide are a fairly new team in the Competition but in fact they were established in 1870.
I would even argue that the Lions are an established club as we amalgamated with Fitzroy who were founded in 1883. The Sydney team was moved from Melbourne, previously called South Melbourne and established 1874, lock stock and barrel 1982.

The issue for the AFL is that the old Melbourne clubs are too "established".
There is a club too many in Melbourne and the problem is that one will "disappear" in the not too distant future and it will all end in tears of bitterness. The AFL has already agreed to an expansion club on the Gold Coast. North Melbourne Kangaroos were nudged to make a move but refused so it is going to be interesting to see if they can stand on their own.

Nor do I.

I gather from your knowledge you have watched a bit of Rules.

Jesus. My friend told me about this. Kaka definitely isn't worth it in the first place, and AC Milan is having a hard enough time to get in front of Juventus and Inter even with Kaka.

Futbol operates at a very different pay ethos than any other western sport, I can tell you that. You never hear of clubs investing this much into a player as Man City is willing to do.

Ah, sorry I didnt mean it like that. I know a lot of Aussie Rules clubs have been around a long time and they have a history. What I meant by established is that over here we have four clubs that established themselves as the top 4 clubs in the country. The title hasnt been outside of Manchester (United, obviously) or London (Arsenal & Chelsea) since 1991. Of course, this is the point I was trying to make as to whether this is a good thing or not but you guys dont have that over there as I see it. It almost seems like whoever wins your Premiers could be propping up the table the next season. The last club to show any kind of dominance was Brisbane 3 years in a row?


Yeah, I have. I really dont know much about it at all but I have family in Australia and I have been over once for 7 weeks. I understand it and everything but of course I still have limited knowledge. While I was there I watched it a lot on TV and went to 2 or 3 games. I have watched it a few times since but the channel is it on now is a channel I dont have.

I keep meaning to get back into it because I really did like it. I was hooked.

Almost but not quite.

Leeds won it in 92 & Blackburn in 95

Christ, how did I get this wrong?

I knew Leeds were the last winners of the old division one and that the Premier League was founded in 92 and had I stopped to think about it I would have realised both would have been in the same year. Doh.

Why was I thinking Rovers won the first title? I should know better ;)

I've got a feeling City will get Kaka.
It's clear Kaka wasn't too keen on the move, but my guess is Milan are after the £100 million and pushing Kaka away.

I was thinking that Man City's signings would show who was really in it for the money but then this bid came a long. Milan will do everything to push Kaka onto City surely.

Judging by the way this deal is developing e.g;
Kaka wants to stay at Milan and grow old with the club.
Followed by...Milan give Kaka the go ahead to talk to City.

I'd say the whole thing went a bit like this.
City approach Milan about a transfer and Milan say he's not for sale.
City say, "oh well... we're offering £100 million!"
Milan reply; "we'll get back to you"

It gets better...

BBC SPORT | Football | Kaka deal could be worth £250m - Bernstein

He's suggesting the £250m figure will be over the course of a 4 year deal?

Thats probably about right when he will be making £24m a year in wages alone.

Still ridiculous.