Dogs Refuse The Move

[Ant_]

If Bulldogs refuse to move it's very bad PR for AFL and Bulldogs

Because it's got nothing to do with the leagues. It's about doing what's right for the people wanting to attend the game

Considering the AFL already rescheduled once for them for the original final date *AND* offered to move again with compensation. The only bad PR is the Sydney centric imbeciles at the FFA who refused to pay any compensation for moving our game and wanted the State government to compensate them if they couldn't have their cake and eat it too.

How anyone can defend these idiots is just mind boggling. If it was the other way round I'd be filthy at the AFL, not the soccer club.

 

[Bender571]

Forget the A-League, they are insignificant in regards to the real issue. The problem here isn't just the Dogs losing a home game, it's one club benefiting by having an additional home game over the rest of the competition. The fact that it's the league leaders who have an amazing record at home recently makes it an even bigger issue as it could influence the shape of the ladder and therefore the finals series.

Three clubs already have that benefit this year

 

[blue harvest]

Three clubs already have that benefit this year

But those games are matches where there is very little, if any, actual home ground advantage.

 

[QuietB]

The AFL did not give up anything. They changed the start date of their season by one week in order to fit in with another major event using the ground they wanted, ergo compromise.

So, in fact, it is entirely correct. The AFL has lost absolutely nothing at all by starting the season later, and in fact has shown it's willingness to compromise by doing so.

Understand?

What is the compromise here? AFL move their game - what does the FFA give up?

Ands lets never forget that the AFL and cricket have been compromising for about 120 years now sharing the same venue.

And Etihad was a specifically built for football venue being paid for by football, and more to the point being paid for by clubs like St Kilda, North and the Bulldogs. Given they have done all the heavy lifting to ensure Etihad exists, why should they move out of the way? Why should their fans move out of the way? The dogs are currently on a massive upward spiral - why should they voluntarily jeopardise that?

 

[Bender571]

But those games are matches where there is very little, if any, actual home ground advantage.

So it's ok to compromise the draw, it's just a matter of how much?

I'd also argue that the difference in advantage between those grounds and the actual home ground is more than a little.

 

[Polly]

Please, take a few deep breaths and read it again. Ask an adult if you need help.

Ok Jeff, you appear top be the only adult in the room, explain to me exactly what you mean by this comment regarding the fixture:
"It's predetermined for your benefit (primarily to mimimise the effects of travel)"

 

[gangsta deluxe]

If Bulldogs refuse to move it's very bad PR for AFL and Bulldogs

Because it's got nothing to do with the leagues. It's about doing what's right for the people wanting to attend the game

Get ****ed.

What's right, in this case, is that the club which represents us as Bulldogs fans stands up for our rights, and for what is best for the chances of the club. It isn't bad PR for our club to put us and our team above Melbourne Victory supporters. To say otherwise is absolutely ridiculous.

The FFA and Melbourne Victory can stuff it right up their clacker.

 

[kaiserchief13]

Get stuffed.

What's right, in this case, is that the club which represents us as Bulldogs fans stands up for our rights, and for what is best for the chances of the club. It isn't bad PR for our club to put us and our team above Melbourne Victory supporters. To say otherwise is absolutely ridiculous.

The FFA and Melbourne Victory can stuff it right up their clacker.

It is bad PR for the league not allowing 20,000 people to watch Victory play their grand final.

 

[Underdog]

How anyone can defend these idiots is just mind boggling. If it was the other way round I'd be filthy at the AFL, not the soccer club.

It was a few years back with a potential WC final at Subi that was booked for a rugby union international. The overwhelming majority were filthy at the AFL, a few were, misguidedly, filthy at Subiaco, and a couple of crazies were bagging union.

 

[gangsta deluxe]

It is bad PR for the league not allowing 20,000 people to watch Victory play their grand final.

The Bulldogs and AFL care about their supporters above all. They are not budging on this. Why is that bad PR?

Those 20k people can deal with it and blame the responsible party - the FFA.

 

[blue harvest]

It is bad PR for the league not allowing 20,000 people to watch Victory play their grand final.

They offered the G which would have allowed 100K to watch if they wanted to.
And Victory aren't even in the GF yet.

 

[Ant_]

It was a few years back with a potential WC final at Subi that was booked for a rugby union international. The overwhelming majority were filthy at the AFL, a few were, misguidedly, filthy at Subiaco, and a couple of crazies were bagging union.

Yep, in that instance I'd back Union in every day of the week, their booking, their day.

Not the rugby's fault, and it was just luck for the AFL that the clash didn't occur.

 

[kaiserchief13]

The Bulldogs and AFL care about their supporters above all. They are not budging on this. Why is that bad PR?

Those 20k people can deal with it and blame the responsible party - the FFA.

It may be their (FFA) fault but the AFL will be the ones blamed if this is the result of it

 

[Underdog]

It is bad PR for the league not allowing 20,000 people to watch Victory play their grand final.

It's only bad PR if they're in the wrong. They're not.

They can quite easily explain that they already have the venue booked and 30,000* Bulldogs fans who have already paid for their right to attend the game.

*based on total members, not ticketed.

 

[Ant_]

It is bad PR for the league not allowing 20,000 people to watch Victory play their grand final.

Bad PR for the FFA, those 20K people need to ask why their management can't book a stadium and why when AFL offered to move with compensation they refused.

 

[Underdog]

It may be their (FFA) fault but the AFL will be the ones blamed if this is the result of it

Have the FFA made any efforts to rectify their error other than wanting the AFL to bend?

Did they schedule a bye or schedule a midweek round to adjust the final date?

I honestly don't know the lengths the FFA have gone to easily fix the issue prior to it escalating to the level it's at now.

 

[Ant_]

Have the FFA made any efforts to rectify their error other than wanting the AFL to bend?

Did they schedule a bye or schedule a midweek round to adjust the final date?

I honestly don't know the lengths the FFA have gone to easily fix the issue prior to it escalating to the level it's at now.

They scheduled the final once and the AFL agreed, this second reschedule the AFL agreed on the proviso they were adequately compensated.

FFA refused to pay up and expected the State Government to pay them compensation if they didn't get the stadium they wanted. All these soccer fans are far too one eyed and have too much of a chip on their shoulder to blame anyone else but the big bad AFL.

 

[Underdog]

They scheduled the final once and the AFL agreed, this second reschedule the AFL agreed on the proviso they were adequately compensated.

FFA refused to pay up and expected the State Government to pay them compensation if they didn't get the stadium they wanted. All these soccer fans are far too one eyed and have too much of a chip on their shoulder to blame anyone else but the big bad AFL.

Sounds to me like the vast majority of society would understand the AFL's position and recognise how accommodating they've been.

 

[Ant_]

Sounds to me like the vast majority of society would understand the AFL's position and recognise how accommodating they've been.

Yeah and for the record here is the article on this.

FFA leant on the Victorian Government to push the AFL in to moving the May 17 Western Bulldogs-Fremantle clash from Docklands to Geelong’s Simonds Stadium.

The AFL - which says it has already made allowances for soccer this season, with the MCG left available for July’s International Champions Cup - is understood to have been willing to move the game, but only if it was financially compensated.

But FFA and the government were unwilling to foot the bill — nor will the Government compensate FFA for revenue lost by keeping any Victory title decider in Melbourne.

http://www.news.com.au/national/a-l...-victory-qualify/story-e6frfkp9-1227310960050

 

[Chillidog]

The FFA should pay $500k for the Dogs to move.

The Dogs agree to move to Perth then take the $750k gate as well.

Surely that would be worth the move.

 

[JeffDunne]

Ok Jeff, you appear top be the only adult in the room, explain to me exactly what you mean by this comment regarding the fixture:
"It's predetermined for your benefit (primarily to mimimise the effects of travel)"

I didn't think it needed explaination.

One predetermined aspect of the draw is to ensure you don't travel on two consecutive weeks.

The other is guaranteeing that one of your away games is always against West Coast.

Two things that compromise the draw for your benefit.

 

[MrsEddieBetts]

Can all the non-Bulldogs supporters having a go at the Bulldogs for not moving just really think about this from the perspective of a fan/member before teeing off?

If Carlton sold one of our home games to WESTERN AUSTRALIA to suit the whims of a disorganised soccer administration then I would be fuming. "Reserve the members some seats!" you say, as if that magics away the cost of flights and accommodation to get to the game. "Move it to Geelong!" you say, as if Skilled Stadium and Etihad are somehow interchangeable.

Gee whiz. It's not the Bulldogs fault, it's not the AFL's fault. The FFA made their bed and now they have to lie in it. Either change the date of the game, use the MCG, or use AAMI Park. 3 reasonable choices.

 

[Underdog]

I didn't think it needed explaination.

One predetermined aspect of the draw is to ensure you don't travel on two consecutive weeks.

Does anyone travel interstate 2 weeks in a row?

The other is guaranteeing that one of your away games is always against West Coast.

Agree with this.

It's a pretty minor concession though. It wouldn't concern me in the slightest if it was dumped (it would probably improve our W-L record too)

 

[blue harvest]

I thought it's all been resolved anyway.

They get Etihad for the semi this Friday and if Victory win then the GF is at AAMI.

 

[oak79]

Forget the A-League, they are insignificant in regards to the real issue. The problem here isn't just the Dogs losing a home game, it's one club benefiting by having an additional home game over the rest of the competition. The fact that it's the league leaders who have an amazing record at home recently makes it an even bigger issue as it could influence the shape of the ladder and therefore the finals series.

Yeh - it's great the league doesn't allow clubs to have additional advantages - like less travel, more Friday night games, bigger breaks.

Or playing the Grandfinal in Melbourne, at the expense of a higher placed non-Victorian team. The AFL would never allow that kind of advantage, right?
Or in the past, force teams like West Coast and Brisbane to play home finals in Melbourne.

So... as a supporter of a big-Vic' probably better if you don't bring up additional advantages, hey?