Extra Home Game For WA Teams

[doppleganger]

There's 4 teams that call the MCG home, ideally we should be able to play 2 of them there and the other 2 at home and then rotate it through - but that would be too fair for the AFL

Part of the problem is that those 4 MCG tenant teams never have the opportunity to play all of their 11 home games at the G.

And even with that opposition supporters still complain that Coll get X number of games at the MCG.

Freo and WCE should arrange to play the Western Derby at the G as part of a 3 week trip out to the east coast. Stops travel, gets them more G games....and teams like Coll and Haw don't get any extra G games....win, win and win!!

 

[telsor]

Bit of maths for you

Get population of vic - divide by amount of teams

Sure...5,768,600/10 = 576,860 per club.

Get population of tas and divide by one

513,400 (that'd be 62,540 less than 1/10th of Vic, and a lot less centralised)

Get population of nt and divide by one

241,800 (and you seriously think they can handle a team?)

And you already have enough advantages - starting with every single grand final will always be in your home state - this is about evening it up -

We have very little home ground advantage. What other ground in the country does every team play at, every year, usually multiple times?

when you even things up the side with more advantages loses some of the advantages thus creating something ..... Wait for it...... Wait for it....... More even.

How do we have more advantages? Why is getting on a plane only a problem in AFL, US sports seem to manage, soccer teams fly everywhere....they all talk about home ground advantage being an issue, but here, home ground advantage is nothing (even though unlike those sports, our grounds are different sizes/shapes), and having to get on a plane an intolerable burden.

If you want more even, have more teams in WA, as I've suggested.

BTW, to continue from the population figures above.

WA Pop 2,535,700/2 = 1,262,850 per team.

 

[Colonial]

We have very little home ground advantage. What other ground in the country does every team play at, every year, usually multiple times?

But you get one hell of a financial incentive. Plus the gf being at your home ground helps when you get there.

How do we have more advantages? Why is getting on a plane only a problem in AFL, US sports seem to manage, soccer teams fly everywhere....they all talk about home ground advantage being an issue, but here, home ground advantage is nothing (even though unlike those sports, our grounds are different sizes/shapes), and having to get on a plane an intolerable burden.
.

Yes but in the states every one travels. How many comps overseas have the majority of their teams 5 mins from each other?

 

[didaksrightfoot]

I did have a look at the schedules actually.

The WA sides have ~75 hours in flight time. If you do a search on flight times/distance and work out average speed of plane (or simply do 10 x return trips to Melbourne), this equates to around 55,000 km.

The NBA has sides ranging from ~55-80,000 km (which may include ground travel as well); the MLB is similar. Some teams might be higher than WC/Freo, but I don't think this really aids your argument. Considering lots of short flights (or ground transport) would be better than fewer long flights; most NBA/MLB teams use private/charter planes; and, most importantly, the physical toll in AFL is far greater. Baseball? Joke of a sport when it comes to conditioning requirements.

Players for a big European soccer club actually travel far less considering they only play a handful of European games and each country is very small for the domestic leagues. Bayern would log less than 20,000 km (closer to 15-16k) if they make the Champions League final, plus the small amounts for Bundesliga. And again, soccer players might run a bit (still far less than an AFL player), but don't have the contact/battery to their bodies.

AFL players need every bit of the 6-7 days in between games to recover. Comparison with the sports above is futile, as they don't crush the body like an AFL game does. You simply cannot pretend that flying so many miles doesn't have a negative effect on the body for a sport like AFL. It is a fact. Now, one can also argue that it evens up by the advantages of 10 genuine home ground games, but don't act like the flight hours logged isn't a relevant point.

What would be a decent compromise is if the AFL allowed Freo/WC to use a charter/private jet with better recovery facilities on board. I'm pretty sure the teams have campaigned for this, but the AFL won't allow it.

I was more referring to the sheer amount of flights/travel those teams do.

Personally, I would much rather do 1 return 3hr flight, with a 13 day break until my next bit of travel, then have to face 3-4 games a week, often back-to-backs, often in different timezones. The overall km's may be less (though with 41 away games for NBA teams, and 81 away games for MLB) - the impact of that constant travel would be a lot harsher than the AFL schedule.

I do think charter flights is a good idea... and I would support clubs being able to do that.

But - again - this thread was started on the premise that the clubs somehow deserve an extra home game... you can't honestly tell me you agree with that?

 

[Tiger2709]

Get rid of all the other fixture compromises. Silly s**t like clubs popular with bogan baby boomers and their hordes of unemployed children like Richmond having doubled up
blockbusters despite having achieved nothing in 35 years.

That really is quite a laugh.

You support Fremantle, a club that currently has zero flags in it's 20 year history or to use your words a club that still exists even though it has achieved nothing in it's entire history, a club based in a city renowned for it's large amount of youth and general unemployment, and here you are complaining about the supposed hordes of unemployed children in Richmond and the fact that Richmond gets blockbusters after achieving nothing for 35 years.

Your description of Richmond actually suits Fremantle better except you could have written, "hoards of unemployed wanna be hipsters, many of whom are the children of bogan baby boomers."

What the Richmond Football Club has achieved in 35 years is retaining a large supporter base that helps drive the AFL's wealth and that wealth is shared amongst all clubs rich or poor.

Quarterly unemployment rate

 

[telsor]

But you get one hell of a financial incentive. Plus the gf being at your home ground helps when you get there.

From being forced to play at the 2 grounds with the worst stadium returns in the country? (before AO).

Yes but in the states every one travels. How many comps overseas have the majority of their teams 5 mins from each other?

Some flights are longer/shorter....There are a lot of NHL teams in the north east of the US/Canada, doesn't seem to phase the Ducks (in LA).

 

[clogged]

What the Richmond Football Club has achieved in 35 years is retaining a large supporter base that helps drive the AFL's wealth and that wealth is shared amongst all clubs rich or poor.

Yes, the AFL essentially continues to mine the support it generated in the VFL in the 60s and 70s, when the largest cohort of diehard supporters were in their teens and twenties. It's a fine strategy to be at the top while that group are now wealthier and willing to pay large amounts of money to follow the game, but when the old farts fall off the perch, what is next?

The AFL face competition from more sports than ever, and in recent years have begun to see a decline in attendances. How long can it realistically milk blockbusters that were last relevant in the 70s? Fifty years? One hundred years? Why should the fixture be centred around which teams were competitive 40 years ago? Other sports are beginning to gain ground and can advocate thrilling, meaningful contests. The AFL persist with 'Richmond vs Carlton' as a regular double up at the MCG. What a thrill.

Most young kids starting to follow the game now would have to ask their grandparents what it was like when Richmond was successful, because their parents wouldn't have been born when they were. Why does the AFL continue to pander to such a demonstrably unsuccessful club when designing it's fixture. 'Blockbuster' and 'Richmond' should not be in the same sentence until they at least start making top four with some regularity.

 

[Tiger2709]

Yes, the AFL essentially continues to mine the support it generated in the VFL in the 60s and 70s, when the largest cohort of diehard supporters were in their teens and twenties. It's a fine strategy to be at the top while that group are now wealthier and willing to pay large amounts of money to follow the game, but when the old farts fall off the perch, what is next?

The AFL face competition from more sports than ever, and in recent years have begun to see a decline in attendances. How long can it realistically milk blockbusters that were last relevant in the 70s? Fifty years? One hundred years? Why should the fixture be centred around which teams were competitive 40 years ago? Other sports are beginning to gain ground and can advocate thrilling, meaningful contests. The AFL persist with 'Richmond vs Carlton' as a regular double up at the MCG. What a thrill.

Most young kids starting to follow the game now would have to ask their grandparents what it was like when Richmond was successful, because their parents wouldn't have been born when they were. Why does the AFL continue to pander to such a demonstrably unsuccessful club when designing it's fixture. 'Blockbuster' and 'Richmond' should not be in the same sentence until they at least start making top four with some regularity.

You do understand that Richmond while currently unsuccessful on the field is quite successful off the field and that means supporters watch our games in large numbers generating revenue for all clubs to share, it's not to difficult to understand is it, should we scrap the money making WA derby, after all Fremantle has achieved nothing at all in it's 20 years history not one thing, at least Richmond has a history of onfield success, at this stage Fremantle doesn't.

Your argument is ridiculous it is akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face, should we rely on a GWS v GCS blockbuster of 20,000 supporters to generate the cash required to sustain the competition, just watch how quickly the TV rights drop from near a billion dollars to a few million, the blockbusters are arranged to generate cash simple fact.

Personally I long for the days when everyone played each other twice and a blockbuster wasn't an arranged spectacle it just occurred, but at this point in time that isn't possible, so the AFL rely on the clubs that fill the seats and that means Richmond whether it has had success recently or not is a better proposition than Fremantle that has never achieved anything, or a North that has had recent success but just doesn't have the supporter base to sustain regular blockbusters.

As for your comments re grandparents that is a joke and an insult, I'm 51 and have an 18 year old daughter and a 7 year old daughter and I saw Richmond win 5 flags in my time that is more than most clubs have full stop, so no need to go to their Grandparents, Geelong a team you would look at as successful has only recently broken it's 44 year drought, should we have written them off in 2006?

Tell me what does a grandparent of a Fremantle supporter tell there Grand kids when they ask if they can go to the club to see its trophy cabinet and soak up some history?

 

[clogged]

You do understand that Richmond while currently unsuccessful on the field is quite successful off the field and that means supporters watch our games in large numbers generating revenue for all clubs to share, it's not to difficult to understand is it, should we scrap the money making WA derby, after all Fremantle has achieved nothing at all in it's 20 years history not one thing, at least Richmond has a history of onfield success, at this stage Fremantle doesn't.

Your argument is ridiculous it is akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face, should we rely on a GWS v GCS blockbuster of 20,000 supporters to generate the cash required to sustain the competition, just watch how quickly the TV rights drop from near a billion dollars to a few million, the blockbusters are arranged to generate cash simple fact.

Personally I long for the days when everyone played each other twice and a blockbuster wasn't an arranged spectacle it just occurred, but at this point in time that isn't possible, so the AFL rely on the clubs that fill the seats and that means Richmond whether it has had success recently or not is a better proposition than Fremantle that has never achieved anything, or a North that has had recent success but just doesn't have the supporter base to sustain regular blockbusters.

The AFL should be solely interested in displaying its best teams, not its most popular. Not holding onto outdated notions of 'big sides' that last played compelling, competitive football a generation ago. The AFL sells a product called 'Australian football' not 'sentimental club rivalries from when TV was in black and white' and its sole aim should be to promote the best of Australian football.

To continue on with boosting blockbusters that contain no meaning in the current era short changes the long term of Australian football for the present. It certainly means Andrew Demetriou retired a wealthy man, but it does nothing for the good of the game.

 

[MarkT2]

Plus the gf being at your home ground helps when you get there.

Based on actual results that is categorically incorrect.

 

[Colonial]

Based on actual results that is categorically incorrect.

Just because the vics choke with the advantage doesn't make it any less of an advantage.

 

[doppleganger]

Just because the vics choke with the advantage doesn't make it any less of an advantage.

There have been studies done on 'home ground advantage' and the only actual advantage found is due to umpire bias toward the home team, that contentious decisions tend to favour the home team.

The GF is relatively neutral in terms of crowd, with plenty of theatre goers and corporates, so there is no umpire bias toward a baying vocal home crowd.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Each team gets 11 home games. I don't see how this can be changed.

However if WC or Freo can negotiate with a club (like north in the past) to host one of their home games in Perth - then the AFL shouldn't get in the way IMO

Other than that - the travel factor should (and isn't) a high priority when putting together the fixture.

Limited night away games, start the season in the earlier week, have byes after sunday away games and limited travel in the preseason (which they do already)

That is about the limit to what the AFL can and should do to mitigate the travel issue

I wonder whether a pre-season trial one year of back to back away games in Melbourne might work. The boys can travel as a squad and they can run a 1 week mini camp in the east. Would save on flights and allow the players to have more successive home games in the season proper should it be deemed valuable

 

[Smokeyr67]

I worked out that it would require about a ten fold increase in profit for that to be financially viable, the planes run at about a gallon of fuel per 800m of flying.

Obviously it depends on the aircraft, but something sensible like an EMB ERJ 135 burns about 2l/km, seats 37, so it would almost make sense for the AFL to lease one for the teams to use. Players and essential fitness staff could fly AFL airways (with a bit more room, say about 26-28 seats), the rest of the hangers on would have to go commercial.

 

[Taylor]

Obviously it depends on the aircraft, but something sensible like an EMB ERJ 135 burns about 2l/km, seats 37, so it would almost make sense for the AFL to lease one for the teams to use. Players and essential fitness staff could fly AFL airways (with a bit more room, say about 26-28 seats), the rest of the hangers on would have to go commercial.

How would the flight time and artificial altitude pressurisation compare?

 

[Boppo]

The simple solution is to have 4 derbies, showdowns, Qclashes, battles of the bridge each year.

22 games per year, 4 derbies (etc) and 18 games against the other 16 clubs.

In the same vein Vic clubs in the top 8 play each other more often, Vic clubs in the bottom 10 play each other more often.

The draw isn't even or fair anyway, so why not.

Gives each of the non-Victorian clubs 2 more home games a year without upsetting the precious ones in the garden state.

That's a good idea actually.

 

[Tiger2709]

The AFL should be solely interested in displaying its best teams, not its most popular. Not holding onto outdated notions of 'big sides' that last played compelling, competitive football a generation ago. The AFL sells a product called 'Australian football' not 'sentimental club rivalries from when TV was in black and white' and its sole aim should be to promote the best of Australian football.

To continue on with boosting blockbusters that contain no meaning in the current era short changes the long term of Australian football for the present. It certainly means Andrew Demetriou retired a wealthy man, but it does nothing for the good of the game.

If they had no meaning people would not turn up, that's how people let the AFL know what they want, by going to the games, if Freo v Gold Coast at the 'G attracted 90,000 like Richmond versus the Blues then the AFL would play them as the blockbuster, there is no sentiment involved it is about the clubs that are popular now, nothing to do with the sentimental club rivalries from the past.

As I have said I would prefer a draw being as fair as possible each side playing each other twice but that doesn't pay the bills and isnt likely to happen in the near future and at any rate the old big rival clubs have all been in the finals over the last few years so I'm not really sure what you are looking for, empty stadiums doesn't do a lot for excitement and lets be honest the Dockers under Ross Lyon like the Saints of a couple of years ago are not always the most exciting team to watch either.

Simple fact

Colllingwood, Hawthorn, Essendon and Richmond were some of last years biggest crowd drawers and 3 of those 4 were in the finals, so why wouldn't they be in the big games?

 

[Smokeyr67]

How would the flight time and artificial altitude pressurisation compare?

Cruise speed is faster than older 737's, same as the new 737's (0.78 Mach) and max cabin altitude would be 8000ft. Flight time would depend on a number of factors, but the players could just walk on without the usual check-in delays.

 

[Balance]

It's a five hour window right after a match where recovery is put on hold, meanwhile the home team has ice bathed and massaged all before being asleep in bed.

The traveling team gets dehydrated and doesn't recover as well.

That goes both ways but if two clubs are doing it 12 times a season and the majority are doing it half as often the effect is obvious.

The taller you are, the more trouble you'll have with flying at high altitudes (I know I do), this is another concern. I don't know how ruckmen recover, but you would imagine the taller players would have to lie down for most of the flight?

 

[Apex Predators]

If they had no meaning people would not turn up, that's how people let the AFL know what they want, by going to the games, if Freo v Gold Coast at the 'G attracted 90,000 like Richmond versus the Blues then the AFL would play them as the blockbuster, there is no sentiment involved it is about the clubs that are popular now, nothing to do with the sentimental club rivalries from the past.

As I have said I would prefer a draw being as fair as possible each side playing each other twice but that doesn't pay the bills and isnt likely to happen in the near future and at any rate the old big rival clubs have all been in the finals over the last few years so I'm not really sure what you are looking for, empty stadiums doesn't do a lot for excitement and lets be honest the Dockers under Ross Lyon like the Saints of a couple of years ago are not always the most exciting team to watch either.

Simple fact

Colllingwood, Hawthorn, Essendon and Richmond were some of last years biggest crowd drawers and 3 of those 4 were in the finals, so why wouldn't they be in the big games?

The costof getting into the big game = exorbitant
The cost of a pie and beer at the big game = a bit rich
The cost of a Richmond fan on his high horse = priceless

Should the WA teams get an extra home game = no
Should equalisation occur only in exceptional circumstances = yes (bye bye COLA)

 

[didaksrightfoot]

Given the actual title of the thread, and the AFL article it was based on... am I the only one who wants to see a poll here?

I agree that the AFL should look into ways to minimise the impact of travel on clubs, and that there does need to be a more equitable schedule, but I wonder how many people (if any) actually think that giving the WA clubs an extra home game is a reasonable solution?

 

[telsor]

Obviously it depends on the aircraft, but something sensible like an EMB ERJ 135 burns about 2l/km, seats 37, so it would almost make sense for the AFL to lease one for the teams to use. Players and essential fitness staff could fly AFL airways (with a bit more room, say about 26-28 seats), the rest of the hangers on would have to go commercial.

Just looked it up...not good enough.

Only the XR version has the range, and even that is cutting it fine. (range 3704km)
dist to
Melb: 2730 (OK)
Bris: 3614 (no way would you cut it that close)
Syd: 3301 (wouldn't want a headwind)

Sure, it's only a few flights per year, but if you're going to pay US$21-24M (2013 price) to buy a plane for the purpose, you'd want it to make every location. To get a safe range buffer (4000K+), you'd need to go the E-190, which would cost you about $32M. (4260km range, seats 114).

Seems rather excessive for something that'd only be used 20-25 times a year.

 

[Smokeyr67]

Just looked it up...not good enough.

Only the XR version has the range, and even that is cutting it fine. (range 3704km)
dist to
Melb: 2730 (OK)
Bris: 3614 (no way would you cut it that close)
Syd: 3301 (wouldn't want a headwind).

You want a private airborne recovery suite AND direct flights?????

Brisbane and Sydney, pull into Alice and refuel, get out stretch those legs (pilates on the apron) then push on to the destination.

Sure, it's only a few flights per year, but if you're going to pay US$21-24M (2013 price) to buy a plane for the purpose, you'd want it to make every location. To get a safe range buffer (4000K+), you'd need to go the E-190, which would cost you about $32M. (4260km range, seats 114).

Seems rather excessive for something that'd only be used 20-25 times a year.

1. Buy second hand or lease, you'll get a bargain that's only been flown half a dozen times for the house of Saud.

2. Put it into service during the week doing charters on the east coast milk run, keep your crews current, make a few bucks and have the AFL branded aircraft pulling up to terminals in Sydney and Canberra.

 

[Kwality]

So - who gets less home games to accommodate this?

More like workers getting paid travel time - was that Eddie squeaking, nah its squealing. Pay the workers on an even basis for travel time, taking to account time zones not just the hours.

The case for more games in WA is excess demand in Perth compared to the inability of Melbourne clubs to pull a crowd where demand exceeds supply.

As Victorians claim there is no advantage in fixturing Grand Finals in Melbourne, how/why can they claim any disadvantage playing interstate?

 

[Tiger2709]

The costof getting into the big game = exorbitant
The cost of a pie and beer at the big game = a bit rich
The cost of a Richmond fan on his high horse = priceless

Should the WA teams get an extra home game = no
Should equalisation occur only in exceptional circumstances = yes (bye bye COLA)

Agree with most of what you say and yes the price of these games is high, although for those of us in WA the price is over the top all the time, not sure about this Richmond supporter getting on any high horse, I've lived everyone of those 35 years waiting for our next flag so understand we have not been great over the years, but in the discussion I was in it was about blockbusters and Richmond has a big supporter base so will always have some involvement in these games, with the last two years finally in the top 8 we may just start to earn the games from our on field exploits in the future as well, as for the rest of your comments re pies and equalisation I totally agree.