MCG tenants on Grand Final day

[AuntyBlindEye]

I'm always surprised that West Coast supporters are the most vocal about travel and venues given their success in the AFL since joining. I know it's easy to say from the outside, but if I was a WC supporter I could not give a * about travel or venue as I would be pretty bloody confident in the team to perform wherever, whenever.

Granted it's probably because it's targeted towards my team, but I've also never seen as much talk about travel and venue than I have since Richmond's 7 games at the G leading into finals. I certainly don't remember anyone talking about collingwoods 7 games at the G in 2010 when they won. Not saying it wasn't there, just don't remember anyone mentioning it.

In a competition where teams don't play every team once/twice there will always be teams that benefit from and are hurt by the fixturing. It's not like the same team gets a free ride year after year after year after year.

There are ups and downs, pros and cons, good and bad for all teams at all times.

From where I sit, West Coast have the least amount of reason to talk about venue and travel given they are bloody good wherever.

Was I happy to have 7 games at the G in a row? Yes. Did I think it was the best case of fixturing? No. Did I think we had the GF locked away because of it? No ******* way.

I know it's not all people, but anyone attacking a club or supporters directly because of fixturing is a campaigner.

 

[quotemokc]

All other grounds need to be made to be closer in shape to the MCG to be able to compete.

 

[Grin]

i can agree with most of that but Richmond in 17 is a crock - richmond played geelong in a final at the g - geelong would have won at kp

be a whole different kettle of fish then - richmond would have most likely beaten sydney then gone to adelaide for a prelim - goodnight.

freo could mount a good case for winning elsewhere but the g.

That you need to base your argument of West Coast victimisation on rubbish like this shows how delusional you are.

Lol - richmond wasnt beating anyone away from their safe space.

Richmond lost to teams that didnt make the 8 because it was down the road at etihad.

Yep, being a salty bad sport really strengthens your argument.

I think you make some valid points at times, but trying to belittle the success of others is just pathetic. Especially when Richmond were so dominant in the 2017 finals.

 

[Pessimistic]

Thread completely bypasses the fact the mcg based teams have been far stronger this decade than the one before

 

[Grin]

History will show that Richmond won the 2019 premiership despite the odds being stacked against them.
Whether it be not getting the same home ground advantage or compensation for free agents as West Coast and Geelong.
Injuries.
Having amongst the worst free kick ratio.
3 new rules specifically introduced to "Bring Richmond back to the field"
Having to play home finals at a neutral venue.
Etc. etc. etc.

West Coast would never make the finals, much less compete in them if they had to face the same biases and barriers that Richmond has become accustomed to.
Look, I understand that some opposition supporters feel strongly that it's really, really unfair that the AFL doesn't discriminate even more against Richmond, but there can be no doubt, as history will record, that Richmond's magnificent 2019 premiership was won against all odds.

 

[Rich01]

i can agree with most of that but Richmond in 17 is a crock - richmond played geelong in a final at the g - geelong would have won at kp

be a whole different kettle of fish then - richmond would have most likely beaten sydney then gone to adelaide for a prelim - goodnight.

freo could mount a good case for winning elsewhere but the g.

In what alternate league would we be playing in when we played a final down at Kardinia Park?

 

[Carringbush2010]

All the small boutique Victorian clubs such as bulldogs, st Kilda and north would have gone the way of Fitzroy.

But they haven't, there still here which means they're still viable. If they weren't they wouldn't be here.

This is the thinking I can't get my head around, there's some sort of popular belief that the small vic clubs are only in existence because HQ are "vic bias".

Well if that was the case why are HQ so hell bent on a "national" competition? Why would they bother with their own inception clubs the giants and suns in rugby territory? Which they siphon gazillions of dollars to try and enforce support for them.

If HQ was so hell bent on a true "national" comp then why do we still have 10 vic teams? Ahh because they NEED their fans and members!

But NO, HQ is vic bias bla bla. It would be a conflict of interest to keep alive vic clubs while propping up rl territory clubs.

As far as disrespect from vic fans you're talking about a minority. You read the noise from a few here on BF and conflate that as the norm - it isn't. Vic fans only give a s*** about their team and what's good for their club. That doesn't mean they disrespect non vic.

 

[Carringbush2010]

WA footy needed the VFL to expand as much as the VFL needed WA in the expansion. Footy was a mess all over the country and money was being spent that no club had.
Did we get it right with what we have? Absolutely not in my opinion but that was WA ans SA fault we ended up where we are. Those two states had a hell of lot more clout than they thought back then and they never used it. They ran to quickly to join and the winner being Vic footy keeps the spoils.

Maybe, the fact is WA and SA just didn't and still don't have the population base to be the base of the biggest comp.

 

[FreeTK]

But they haven't, there still here which means they're still viable. If they weren't they wouldn't be here.

This is the thinking I can't get my head around, there's some sort of popular belief that the small vic clubs are only in existence because HQ are "vic bias".

Well if that was the case why are HQ so hell bent on a "national" competition? Why would they bother with their own inception clubs the giants and suns in rugby territory? Which they siphon gazillions of dollars to try and enforce support for them.

If HQ was so hell bent on a true "national" comp then why do we still have 10 vic teams? Ahh because they NEED their fans and members!

But NO, HQ is vic bias bla bla. It would be a conflict of interest to keep alive vic clubs while propping up rl territory clubs.

As far as disrespect from vic fans you're talking about a minority. You read the noise from a few here on BF and conflate that as the norm - it isn't. Vic fans only give a s*** about their team and what's good for their club. That doesn't mean they disrespect non vic.

They haven't gone under because the AFL has a less economic rationalist approach and is happy to dish out large sums of money in the form of AFL distributions to keep them afloat.

In large part the ability to support the small Victorian clubs is due to larger TV deals (and ratings) and exposure due to the expansion in to a national competition and the AFL has much more cash to pull levers than it did in the 90's with Fitzroy. It's willingness to provide financial support to clubs is what is different, not that those small vic clubs are somehow more viable. There economic viability is only due to the AFL lining their coffers.

St Kilda, Bulldogs, Melbourne and Kangaroos all receive most money from the AFL with the exception of Giants, Gold Coast and Brisbane. Once you consider that two of those clubs are brand new and the other is in the heart of NRL.

 

[FreeTK]

Maybe, the fact is WA and SA just didn't and still don't have the population base to be the base of the biggest comp.

Neither does Victoria, hence the need to expand to a national comp 30 years ago, and the need of the AFL to prop up the smaller vic clubs who would go out of business without the AFL financial distributions.

 

[Demontim275]

Neither does Victoria, hence the need to expand to a national comp 30 years ago, and the need of the AFL to prop up the smaller vic clubs who would go out of business without the AFL financial distributions.

I think that the reason they were in such bad conditions was corporate greed. Clubs would’ve found a way. Would’ve just been closer to a local comp than it is now (which isn’t necessarily bad)

 

[Carringbush2010]

They haven't gone under because the AFL has a less economic rationalist approach and is happy to dish out large sums of money in the form of AFL distributions to keep them afloat.

In large part the ability to support the small Victorian clubs is due to larger TV deals (and ratings) and exposure due to the expansion in to a national competition and the AFL has much more cash to pull levers than it did in the 90's with Fitzroy. It's willingness to provide financial support to clubs is what is different, not that those small vic clubs are somehow more viable. There economic viability is only due to the AFL lining their coffers.

St Kilda, Bulldogs, Melbourne and Kangaroos all receive most money from the AFL with the exception of Giants, Gold Coast and Brisbane. Once you consider that two of those clubs are brand new and the other is in the heart of NRL.View attachment 773801

So what? Small vic clubs are small vic clubs, if they're not viable why are they still there? If HQ truly want a national comp (which is obvious re: GC, GWS and Bris as you've identified here) wouldn't it be a conflict of interest if they kept alive small vic clubs because they're biased?

It doesn't make sense to claim HQ are propping up small vic clubs because they're vic biased but at the same time HQ siphon even more amounts of money into clubs where their is near zero interest in footy.

It's obvious HQ need to keep those member and supporter bases.

 

[FreeTK]

I think that the reason they were in such bad conditions was corporate greed. Clubs would’ve found a way. Would’ve just been closer to a local comp than it is now (which isn’t necessarily bad)

That isn't the reason.

We do not need to speculate as to why. The answer is known. It wasn't corporate greed, it was simply there was not the money to go around as the market was too small.

The last point you raise is interesting and something that other people have stated. Here is an interesting article about how close the VFL was to collapse;

A couple of interesting quotes from the article;

"Victorian fans can thank Brisbane and West Coast - which joined the competition in 1987 - for effectively saving the league.
Asked why he did not close the league down, Judge Lewis said the league convinced him that the licence revenue from the new teams would prop up the competition."

"A public lottery to support the VFL was also considered and there was even a view if the VFL could just get Richmond to win more games the crowds would come back."

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...fl-came-to-shutting-down-20160408-go1x0m.html

 

[Carringbush2010]

Neither does Victoria, hence the need to expand to a national comp 30 years ago, and the need of the AFL to prop up the smaller vic clubs who would go out of business without the AFL financial distributions.

Then how is it that the VFL was the highest supported comp before it was nationalised? Vic's population has always been larger combined than all of the other footy states hence they have the market share.

It's why we still have 10 teams in vic, not because HQ are vic biased it's because the business is market driven and will cater to the bulk of the market. It's not hard to figure out.

 

[FreeTK]

Then how is it that the VFL was the highest supported comp before it was nationalised? Vic's population has always been larger combined than all of the other footy states hence they have the market share.

It's why we still have 10 teams in vic, not because HQ are vic biased it's because the business is market driven and will cater to the bulk of the market. It's not hard to figure out.

So what? Small vic clubs are small vic clubs, if they're not viable why are they still there? If HQ truly want a national comp (which is obvious re: GC, GWS and Bris as you've identified here) wouldn't it be a conflict of interest if they kept alive small vic clubs because they're biased?

It doesn't make sense to claim HQ are propping up small vic clubs because they're vic biased but at the same time HQ siphon even more amounts of money into clubs where their is near zero interest in footy.

It's obvious HQ need to keep those member and supporter bases.

OMG, you are so wrong it isn't even funny.

You actually don't know what you are talking about.

The VFL was literally on it's knees before West Coast and Lions joined.

West Coast joined only because if the VFL went under, the WAFL would also go under. The WAFL's economic model relied on transfer payments from VFL clubs for WAFL players. Essentially no VFL meant no WAFL.

I literally answered that question in the last post. I think your use of the term conflict of interests confuses your post a bit, but I'll try and get to the bones of it the best I can.

The only reason they are financially viable is due to AFL's model of financial distribution which money to clubs who need it most. Without those funds they would be generating operating losses or very small profits.

The expansion to an 18 team competition meant that there was football every weekend in every state and meant that the AFL could generate a TV rights deal based on the fact each state has football on each week for local markets.

Essentially, Brisbane, GWS, Gold Coast (and to a lesser extent swans) do cost the AFL money if AFL distributions, however they retrieve that money through the extra value of a TV rights deals which has football in 5 different states each week, which creates the potential to reach every household in every mainland state. The small victorian clubs don't do serve any of those purposes, and are far less important from a strategic point of view.

You should have a read of the article I posted above.

 

[Demontim275]

That isn't the reason.

We do not need to speculate as to why. The answer is known. It wasn't corporate greed, it was simply there was not the money to go around as the market was too small.

The last point you raise is interesting and something that other people have stated. Here is an interesting article about how close the VFL was to collapse;

A couple of interesting quotes from the article;

"Victorian fans can thank Brisbane and West Coast - which joined the competition in 1987 - for effectively saving the league.
Asked why he did not close the league down, Judge Lewis said the league convinced him that the licence revenue from the new teams would prop up the competition."

"A public lottery to support the VFL was also considered and there was even a view if the VFL could just get Richmond to win more games the crowds would come back."

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...fl-came-to-shutting-down-20160408-go1x0m.html

Sorry. Nowhere does that say the why. The clubs and stakeholders were spending more money than they could afford.
it wasn’t a lack of fans

 

[FreeTK]

Sorry. Nowhere does that say the why. The clubs and stakeholders were spending more money than they could afford.
it wasn’t a lack of fans

It does say. It clearly states that the VFL had 4 million dollars in assets. Which is quite pitiful.

We also know at the time the TV rights deal was worth 3 million dollars per year.

Player payments were going through the roof, primarily due to trade wars between Richmond and Collingwood and also having to lure players from the WAFL and pay transfer fees of around 65K per player.

Or you can listen to the CEO of the VFL at the time who said it himself;

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Maybe, the fact is WA and SA just didn't and still don't have the population base to be the base of the biggest comp.

Was never ever about being the base, Victoria always was going to be.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

History will show that Richmond won the 2019 premiership despite the odds being stacked against them.
Whether it be not getting the same home ground advantage or compensation for free agents as West Coast and Geelong.
Injuries.
Having amongst the worst free kick ratio.
3 new rules specifically introduced to "Bring Richmond back to the field"
Having to play home finals at a neutral venue.
Etc. etc. etc.

West Coast would never make the finals, much less compete in them if they had to face the same biases and barriers that Richmond has become accustomed to.
Look, I understand that some opposition supporters feel strongly that it's really, really unfair that the AFL doesn't discriminate even more against Richmond, but there can be no doubt, as history will record, that Richmond's magnificent 2019 premiership was won against all odds.

Ricmond 2019 really is a message of hope for those posting in this thread about inequities in the game.

6-6-6 may not have been targeted at Richmond, but the broad consensus was that the Tiges would be hardest hit due to their unconventional weak ruck division and setups at centre bounces (particlarly Lambert's role as a defensive side extra). But Richmond changed, found a way with a Sudanese Rookie and a cat B basketballer ruck duo when Nankervis went down.

There will always be inequities in the game, like Richmond '19, you can find a way to overcome them!

 

[kranky al]

In what alternate league would we be playing in when we played a final down at Kardinia Park?

The same alternate league doppleganger is in where you arent playing games at etihad.

 

[Grin]

Ricmond 2019 really is a message of hope for those posting in this thread about inequities in the game.

6-6-6 may not have been targeted at Richmond, but the broad consensus was that the Tiges would be hardest hit due to their unconventional weak ruck division and setups at centre bounces (particlarly Lambert's role as a defensive side extra). But Richmond changed, found a way with a Sudanese Rookie and a cat B basketballer ruck duo when Nankervis went down.

There will always be inequities in the game, like Richmond '19, you can find a way to overcome them!

Also the kick out after a behind and the Ruck changes were thought likely to effected the Tigers the most.

Richmond's 2017 to 2019 really should be an inspiration. Instead it's: "Wa wa! Even though we get leg ups not afforded to the Tigers, we need even more unsporting advantages to be able to compete with them. It's all so unfair. My club shouldn't have to develop strategies and a culture that wins premierships. The AFL owes us. The world owes us. We should be handed premierships, not made to earn them like the Tigers do. Wa wa wa."

 

[kranky al]

Also the kick out after a behind and the Ruck changes were thought likely to effected the Tigers the most.

Richmond's 2017 to 2019 really should be an inspiration. Instead it's: "Wa wa! Even though we get leg ups not afforded to the Tigers, we need even more unsporting advantages to be able to compete with them. It's all so unfair. My club shouldn't have to develop strategies and a culture that wins premierships. The AFL owes us. The world owes us. We should be handed premierships, not made to earn them like the Tigers do. Wa wa wa."

You picked a blinder of a player (cant think of his name - bloke with the mo) to back nank up in the ruck.

i remember before that game pencilling in either a draw or a small win in the ruck - instead old mate mustache flogged hickey like a red headed stepchild.

 

[Demontim275]

It does say. It clearly states that the VFL had 4 million dollars in assets. Which is quite pitiful.

We also know at the time the TV rights deal was worth 3 million dollars per year.

Player payments were going through the roof, primarily due to trade wars between Richmond and Collingwood and also having to lure players from the WAFL and pay transfer fees of around 65K per player.

Or you can listen to the CEO of the VFL at the time who said it himself;

Sounds like almost exactly what I said. Overspending by teams and stakeholders. Trying to buy flags.

I don’t even think you know what you’re arguing anymore. You just seem to want to tell anyone from Victoria they’re wrong.

 

[FreeTK]

Sounds like almost exactly what I said. Overspending by teams and stakeholders. Trying to buy flags.

I don’t even think you know what you’re arguing anymore. You just seem to want to tell anyone from Victoria they’re wrong.

Nope. It wasn't a spending problem, it was a revenue problem because the base associated with a state league was too small.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

The MCG is neutral for all Victorian clubs. As is Marvel. There is no travel for them or their supporters and they arent wandering around aimlesslessy in a foreign city getting their bearings.

If the bigger clubs draw bigger crowds then thats good for them. But it doesnt guartantee success, and it has no influence on "home ground advantage".