Should Interstate Clubs Sell Home Games To Play At The MCG?

Remove this Banner Ad

Aug 14, 2011
44,794
16,853
Trafalgar
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Mclaren Mercedes F1
GC was listed as the home team (a point the AFL even supported the GC with the rule that as the home team, they would wear their home strip)..

Nevertheless, even if the difference is in semantics, the result is the same. GC received money by selling their home game, to be played elsewhere than their home ground.

Put it another way, if you believe the home game was PA's, PA played their home game in China. NM played their home game in Tas.
So, why demand that Vic teams should not be allowed to play their home games on grounds other than their home ground, but non-Victorian teams (whether it is PA or GC in this case) are allowed to.

My statement stands.. "Yes, GC can sell home games, but you nasty Vic teams should not be allowed to do what we do!!"

Or, if you want to change it to suit your change in semantics, "Yes, non Vic teams can play their home games anywhere they like, but you nasty Vic teams should not be allowed to do what we do!!"

Forget the sell games template, the AFL simply add yet another FIX to the FIXture, as it effectively did in China.
 

slugger01

Club Legend
Sep 7, 2015
1,855
2,655
AFL Club
Collingwood
I don't need to as it was the unimportant stuff that already dealt with. You just did not like it and cannot get over it..
No, it's you that cannot get over the fact that you didn't read my post correctly, and then went on a paranoid rave about your team not being advantaged, reading something that i did not write.
Nah, I took you ill conceived comments that were incorrect assumptions by you, in the manner they were delivered.
Again, i pointed out your lack of comprehension. I did not make any assumptions about your team being advantaged, and i re-iterated my post, lest you mis-read them.
Again, you didn't like the answer that you misread the statement, and your accusations of me were baseless.
So, you then ignored that, and claim it is not important, and tried to change the topic to the second part of my post, which now became important to you and want to focus on because you were proven incorrect in your claim that i made ill-conceived assumptions.

Get over the fact that you didn't read or comprehend by original post correctly, and stop trying to belittle other posters as a form of defense when you are wrong.

End of discussion with you.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Aug 14, 2011
44,794
16,853
Trafalgar
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Mclaren Mercedes F1
Umm, an NON VICTORIAN side organised to play GC in China. Nothing to do with Victorian clubs..
And, if you believe the spin from Port, they did this for the "good of the game - to expand it internationally".

And, the only poor stadium deal in Vic was with Etihad.. That issue has now been fixed.

Digressing but I must have missed the changed arrangements ? AFL bought it & borrowed $180 mil to do the deal, so is just picking up the tab on loss making games at the facility plus paying interest on the $180 MIL ... pls point out my error.
 
Umm, an NON VICTORIAN side organised to play GC in China. Nothing to do with Victorian clubs..
And, if you believe the spin from Port, they did this for the "good of the game - to expand it internationally".

And, the only poor stadium deal in Vic was with Etihad.. That issue has now been fixed.

Wrong.

MCG deal is also pretty bad...not as bad as docklands perhaps, but still crappy for the clubs. (not least due to the AFL skimming a large chunk off the top).

Also, the Docklands deal hasn't changed much if at all because the AFL is still using the clubs to pay their debts.
 

JohnZ

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 10, 2016
7,757
11,594
AFL Club
Geelong
Has to be 11 home and 11 away but that said, I would like to actually see Freo get more games in Melbourne so the Victorian Membership is a little more worthwhile.

I mean, we can't get into Geelong without paying extra because that tinpot stadium allocates sweet **** all for opposition clubs (bunch of insecure pissants) oh and it would be great if we didn't get shafted to Tassie or ******* Darwin other years against MCG tenant clubs Melbourne and Hawthorn...that would be greatly appreciated.

The reason we don't get games at the MCG is because Victorian clubs keep selling games interstate...why should we be penalised for that?
And Geelong fans can't get into Domain without paying extra. Who would have thought that a club wants to give a benefit to its members.
 
some great points made in this thread. The GF being played at the MCG has been reviewed now on bigfooty this past 2 weeks constantly and regardless of the pros and cons, its going to be played there for a minimum of 20 more years.
I believe clubs should be able to play their home games wherever they choose to play them (assuming the grounds etc are available and to a AFL standard) - but the point being the home club decides - not interstate clubs saying ohh the AFL should re-schedule this game at the MCG because we always have to play in Tassie - bad luck. If its not your home game - you play where the home team wants to play. If Freo (for their home game) decide they want to play at Mandurah - The Hawks come over and play at Mandurah.
 

Oxirane

All Australian
Aug 16, 2009
601
1,257
AFL Club
West Coast
Why don't they let the higher ranked grand final team decide the narrowness of the boundary (e.g. make it 25m narrower)?
 
Aug 27, 2014
38,196
41,193
spacetime
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
there are no other teams worthy
I believe clubs should be able to play their home games wherever they choose to play them (assuming the grounds etc are available and to a AFL standard) - but the point being the home club decides - not interstate clubs saying ohh the AFL should re-schedule this game at the MCG because we always have to play in Tassie - bad luck. If its not your home game - you play where the home team wants to play. If Freo (for their home game) decide they want to play at Mandurah - The Hawks come over and play at Mandurah.

Whilst I agree with your point. There is also a need for AFL to attempt to balance things out nicely.
If that means making sure a minimum number of games are played by each club at the MCG, (even the away clubs) then it is up to the AFL to ensure some club is not disadvantaged by playing away games in Tasmania, Northern Territory and other places that may prevent them reaching a reasonable amount of games on the MCG.

Hawks playing GWS at the MCG this year would have meant GWS got a reasonable 2 at MCG as away games but they shuttled off to Tasmania.
Hawks playing Adelaide down there instead would have meant both Crows and Giants get exactly 2 games at the MCG.
Carlton play North at MCG instead of Sydney also would mean North get 2 games at MCG during the year instead of only 1.

Melbourne playing Gold Coast at MCG instead of NT would mean Suns get a more reasonable 2 also at the MCG.

The AFL get to decide whom play Melbourne in NT if Demons want a game there and it should balance things out nicely so a club like Gold Coast is not missing out on seeing the MCG at least two times in home and away fixture.
 

JohnZ

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 10, 2016
7,757
11,594
AFL Club
Geelong
Why don't they let the higher ranked grand final team decide the narrowness of the boundary (e.g. make it 25m narrower)?
Go a step further. The whole MCG from position of the posts, to the depth of the pockets, the width and length of the ground should be changed for the home team. So an etihad tennant can have an Etihad shaped ground for all MCG finals if they're the home team.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Rance2Mewtwo

Cancelled
Jul 31, 2016
1,554
4,909
AFL Club
Richmond
Haven't seen too many Adelaide fans complaining about the MCG, but the top team deserves the advantage not the lower ranked one.

Well Richmond are the top ranked team now.

Number one.

Finishing a draw above 3rd gives you the right to a home state QF, Semi, or Prelim, and you get a week's rest by finishing top 4, and you get to wear your home colours.

How many advantages should you get for performing marginally better across a fixtured season?
 
Wrong.

MCG deal is also pretty bad...not as bad as docklands perhaps, but still crappy for the clubs. (not least due to the AFL skimming a large chunk off the top).

Also, the Docklands deal hasn't changed much if at all because the AFL is still using the clubs to pay their debts.

There hasn't been a new deal, yet. I think there will be a new deal for next season. I asked someone from my club and they said while they didn't have any details on the new agreement, it is going to be substantially better than it used to be.

I think this is due largely to the fact a number of very lucrative revenue streams weren't counted against the gate previously and were exclusive revenue for the stadium owners, clubs also only got 75% of a standard gate price for each corporate box attendee, which is * all, on a good night corporate box sales would be around $1m and clubs were getting $5k.

I think it will be significantly better, not sure how much better, I think the AFL will want non-Docklands tenants to want to play games there and will want to significantly undercut the MCC so it puts pressure on them when coming to re-negotiating stadium deals for MCG tenants.

You would think if the deals the AFL offered clubs were s**t, the clubs would have a mandate to ask for Gilligan's resignation for costing them $200m for no gain whatsoever, the clubs agreed to buy out Docklands early for the sole purpose of fixing the horrendous stadium deals.

While MCC's stadium deal is mediocre, it has a critical mass that if you get a big crowd in you are still going to make some decent money, the problem with the Docklands agreement was there was not much room between the break-even point and the capacity for public seating, there was no real scope to make money there, it was a complete donkey.
 
Last edited:
Aug 14, 2011
44,794
16,853
Trafalgar
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Mclaren Mercedes F1
There hasn't been a new deal, yet. I think there will be a new deal for next season. I asked someone from my club and they said while they didn't have any details on the new agreement, it is going to be substantially better than it used to be.

I think this is due largely to the fact a number of very lucrative revenue streams weren't counted against the gate previously and were exclusive revenue for the stadium owners, clubs also only got 75% of a standard gate price for each corporate box attendee, which is **** all, on a good night corporate box sales would be around $1m and clubs were getting $5k.

I think it will be significantly better, not sure how much better, I think the AFL will want non-Docklands tenants to want to play games there and will want to significantly undercut the MCC so it puts pressure on them when coming to re-negotiating stadium deals for MCG tenants.

You would think if the deals the AFL offered clubs were s**t, the clubs would have a mandate to ask for Gilligan's resignation for costing them $200m for no gain whatsoever, the clubs agreed to buy out Docklands early for the sole purpose of fixing the horrendous stadium deals.

While MCC's stadium deal is mediocre, it has a critical mass that if you get a big crowd in you are still going to make some decent money, the problem with the Docklands agreement was there was not much room between the break-even point and the capacity for public seating, there was no real scope to make money there, it was a complete donkey.

Its the party line Tas:
it is going to be substantially better than it used to be.

But the horrendous stadium deals continue, just no one is allowed to complain any more.
 
Its the party line Tas:
it is going to be substantially better than it used to be.

But the horrendous stadium deals continue, just no one is allowed to complain any more.

I can understand people being cynical, I guess we will find out eventually when 2018 financials are released.
 

RightYouAreThen

Team Captain
Oct 16, 2014
468
552
AFL Club
Fremantle
The AFL wouldnt Let them.
This might sound like a ridiculous idea but would you be happy for your club to sell 1 or 2 home games a year to play on the MCG?

If I followed a club (even Melbourne based) who did not play home games at the MCG I would be more then happy doing this knowing if you made the GF you were a greater chance of winning rhe biggest game of the year.

There is no doubt by doing this your win/loss may be affected negatively but i think the Pro's out way the Con's.

Thoughts?
not a bad idea mate
 

PowerForGood

2020. The year the competition became terminal. Ju
10k Posts
Sep 1, 2006
16,849
15,401
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Liverpool, Lakers, Rabbitohs
I have a better idea.

Instead of coming up with ideas for non Vic clubs to minimise the impact of an skewed competition, how about we remove the skewness and make the competition ...... fair and even?
 

Cudi_420

Premiership Player
Feb 16, 2010
4,575
3,039
East Melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
I think it could work if the AFL builds something around it, like an FA Cup-style trophy or something. So Adelaide plays West Coast for, say, the Western Cup. Port plays Freo for the Suburban Cup.

Sydney vs Brisbane
GWS vs GC (lol)
 
Nov 11, 2010
2,851
8,001
Punt Rd End
AFL Club
Richmond
So why has this never been an issue is the past? Is it because a team that is an MCG tenant is now the premier? Sydney share their home ground with no one, GWS and Gold Coast the same. Two teams share the one ground in Adelaide and WA. The MCG on the other hand has multiple tenants. The home ground advantage throughout the season is far less pronounced than it is at any interstate venue.

Other than the Grand Final, Interstate teams have a distinct advantage over most Victorian based clubs. It would be difficult to pinpoint how big an advantage but given the win/loss ratio at these venues to the home team I would suggest the advantage is significant. This advantage would certainly give them far more additional wins to get them into the finals and even get them into the GF in the first place.

So why Richmond did play the most important game of the year at their home ground, they had no more advantage than any of the other half a dozen teams that use it or anywhere near the leg up Interstate teams get during the season and finals playing at their near exclusive grounds.

If a team is good enough, they will win the GF regardless. Its not a if Sydney, West Coast, Port, Adelaide or Brisbane have never won games at the 'G including Grand Finals.

Time to look for excuses elsewhere.....wasn't it the umpires last year?!
 
I have a better idea.

Instead of coming up with ideas for non Vic clubs to minimise the impact of an skewed competition, how about we remove the skewness and make the competition ...... fair and even?

Great, let's start by reducing the advantage non Vic clubs have during the H&A season.
 
I'll bite. What are they?

Bigger home ground advantage for one.

Not really sure about the details, but the fact is the 6 clubs that have been around since (before) 2000 win, on average, 1 game more than they lose each year.

If they're so harshly disadvantaged, then they must all be exceptional clubs to have sustained that level of advantage over that period in the face of such hardship.
 
Back