Opinion VICBias - Genuine Discussion

[Pessimistic]

SA and WA stuffed up big time and only have ourselves to blame. They should have formed an alliance in the 80's and said to the VFL we are not interested in joining your little state league, we will only participate in a new AFL competition - so get rid of half your clubs and get back to us. VFL was a financial basket case at the time so they needed us more than we needed them. We held the position of power yet somehow got screwed over and now the horse has bolted. Those in charge of the WAFL and SANFL back then should hang their heads shame. If you designed a new AFL competition from scratch it would look nothing like this Victorian dominated dogs breakfast we have at present.

On SM-G965F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Another what if is if Australia only had one football code and air travel was always cheap.

Competition would be dominated by sydney and melbourne. and sydney based comps have even more disdain for other states then melbourne has. they have regional NSW teams but not some states

 

[Colonial]

Check out Carltons draw last year, we would love 11 games at the one venue.

Who got 11 games at the one venue? Not us.

How many games did the Blues get in Victoria?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bh90210fan]

Most footy maths nerds have looked at this, squiggle did a great writeup on it a few years ago. Geelong probably has the best advantage of any side, their home games in Geelong have a true advantage, whilst away games played in Melbourne have no real disadvantage.

Fixture Analysis 2018: Home Ground Advantage - Squiggle

Note (July 2020): This post employs a very basic metric of Home Ground Advantage, where it’s basically all about geography. That’s good enough for roughing things, but I don’t believe it’s really the source of HGA, and my model hasn’t used something like this for a couple of years. The major...

squiggle.com.au

I think this covers it pretty well. All non Victorian clubs have a net zero homeground advantage in the home and away season, Playing 10 home games with an advantage balanced with 10 away games. Gold Coast and Fremantle were influenced in 2018 through Gold Coast being forced to play a home game in Perth.

It’s the Melbourne clubs which vary. If you look at the fixture this year Richmond have 14 MCG games plus another game against Port Adelaide at Marvel stadium which puts them on the positive side of the Home and Away ledger. The only non-Victorian team to get this is Port Adelaide by playing away game in China. Saint Kilda get shafted hosting Port Adelaide in China and Essendon and Carlton get the least home ground advantage of everyone, Playing home games against MCG tenants at the MCG and Marvel tenants at Marvel stadium

 

[PerthblueGold]

I think if the 10% per player is applied by say the league rather than the clubs, it can't be manipulated. I think in Sydneys case, they used the COLA allowance for the whole squad to lure two or three players with the extra cash

So how do you plan for that, if effectively, you don't know who is playing until 1 week before?
How do you sell corporate packages if you don't know the stadium, who do you allocate "x" amount of seats to clubs, then "X" amount of seats to competing club members?

The Superbowl model works, because everyone knows the venue two years out from the event, planning is set...
If it happens to fall on a teams home ground, so be it, thats luck (or good planning) rather than Bias.
I could live with that.

Good point...therefore if keeping the GF @ MCG then the other option is to move the tennant clubs around more during the season

 

[Rich01]

Took me forever but I found it

Get ready for more hand-outs to Vic Clubs

I find this sickening. How about Vlad addresses the cause and does something about it! Too many clubs in Vic and therefore not enought dollars and supoprters for some clubs. His solution is to penalise those who can stand alone. I hope the interstate clubs together with viable Vic clubs tell...

www.bigfooty.com

Interesting. What was the outcome of this do you know?

We know that measures were put in place to make some sides more competitive- Brisbane took advantage of the salary cap loophole on home grown talent during the time of their three peat. Sydney got Cola on the premise of competitiveness that saw them win a flag in 2012. GWS received extra list spots and salary cap to build and keep an imposing squad of immensely talented players. Gold Coast received similar, as well as additional draft picks and academy compensations to try to become competitive.

The question really is, is this a Vic bias problem, or is the AFL putting in measures that give some clubs more of an advantage at a given time?

 

[RUNVS]

Umpire neutrality - problematic. Tell that to Sydney who copped an all time low 8 free kicks to the Bulldogs 20

and from memory that is including the slight square up near the end of the game where the umpires gave the Swans a few free kicks when the game was already won.

 

[telsor]

There is a growing sentiment here in SA that the league is severely slanted, and I can see it becoming a serious problem for the AFL if they don’t address it.

How would it become a serious problem?

 

[RUNVS]

Interesting. What was the outcome of this do you know?

We know that measures were put in place to make some sides more competitive- Brisbane took advantage of the salary cap loophole on home grown talent during the time of their three peat. Sydney got Cola on the premise of competitiveness that saw them win a flag in 2012. GWS received extra list spots and salary cap to build and keep an imposing squad of immensely talented players. Gold Coast received similar, as well as additional draft picks and academy compensations to try to become competitive.

The question really is, is this a Vic bias problem, or is the AFL putting in measures that give some clubs more of an advantage at a given time?

I don't think there ever was an outcome as I think the review abruptly ended when Geelong won the premiership that year.

 

[mike123]

Which is the trade off? More travel or more away games?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Both, a trade off is where you trade one thing for another.

 

[RUNVS]

How would it become a serious problem?

In an ideal world the non-Victorian clubs form their own league, a league of 8 teams to start with, with the richer clubs making sure GWS and Gold Coast survive, which they would be able to do comfortable, and the league holds out for the poorer VFL teams to start dying, and coaxing over a few of the richer Victorian teams.

Not going to happen, but it would be interesting to see what would happen if it did. The VFL with 10 teams would be reasonably screwed compared to the breakaway league.

 

[Colonial]

Both, a trade off is where you trade one thing for another.

Very true, so why are we trading 2 things for 1?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mike123]

Very true, so why are we trading 2 things for 1?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You’re not

 

[Colonial]

You’re not

Neutral games is equal to home and away advantage.

So why include travel in that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[The Warlord]

For me the biggest issue is the fact that some clubs play a lot of their games @ the Grand Final venue..and this becomes a huge advantage if one of those teams gets to the GF against an interstate club.....so if you cant shift the home of the GF....shift some of those tennant clubs around a bit more...

You do get that this applies to some Victorian clubs too?

It is the norm that Docklands clubs play as many MCG games as interstate clubs.

There is indeed Vic Bias, but it is Big Vic Club Bias.

 

[Robertio]

Who got 11 games at the one venue? Not us.

How many games did the Blues get in Victoria?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm talking about games at one venue. not travel i've already said that interstate sides are at a disadvantage. Carlton played 12 games in Victoria.

 

[Senor M]

In an ideal world the non-Victorian clubs form their own league, a league of 8 teams to start with, with the richer clubs making sure GWS and Gold Coast survive, which they would be able to do comfortable, and the league holds out for the poorer VFL teams to start dying, and coaxing over a few of the richer Victorian teams.

Not going to happen, but it would be interesting to see what would happen if it did. The VFL with 10 teams would be reasonably screwed compared to the breakaway league.

Where as I believe the breakaway league would be reasonably screwed compared to the VFL. The current Television rights deal is propped up by Foxtel money (who pays more than Ch. 7). I've mentioned this in the past, but it's unable to confirm due to lack of public data---- I believe that the majority of Foxtel subscribers who subscribe for AFL would be within Victoria (as all other states get FTA games for their local teams each week).

I'm not sure where the 8 "non-Victorian clubs" would make their money from with lesser TV deals, etc.

.....however I believe there's probably enough discussion to dedicate an entire thread to this suggestion.

 

[RUNVS]

Where as I believe the breakaway league would be reasonably screwed compared to the VFL. The current Television rights deal is propped up by Foxtel money (who pays more than Ch. 7). I've mentioned this in the past, but it's unable to confirm due to lack of public data---- I believe that the majority of Foxtel subscribers who subscribe for AFL would be within Victoria (as all other states get FTA games for their local teams each week).

I'm not sure where the 8 "non-Victorian clubs" would make their money from with lesser TV deals, etc.

.....however I believe there's probably enough discussion to dedicate an entire thread to this suggestion.

What makes you think the break away league would be lesser? If the AFL suddenly just became the VFL their TV rights deal would tank. The VFL would also have a lot more teams who need support than the break away league does.

 

[WestCoast05]

There have been a number of grand finals over the past ten years where a higher ranked interstate team has played a Victorian team at the MCG, and to me this is completely unfair irrespective of whether the interstate team manages to overcome the odds and win. You can discuss the advantage of having a genuine home ground advantage during the season, but the Grand Final isn't played played during the season.

The mentality is 'ah well, if the (interstate) team is good enough they'll win it anyway' but that isn't the point. They shouldn't have to rise up above an unfair playing field.

Wow what a great mentality from someone who supports a team that could benefit from that inequality in future. Kudos for being able to thing critically - breath af fresh air on BF really (but let's face it, many of the reasonable posters can't get their 2c in cos of the one-eyed trolls).

I am actually all for the AFL setting an 80k minimum capacity in order for WA/SA/NSW/QLD to hold the Grand Final IF the higher placed team is from that state.
Then it is up to the non-Vic states to build a stadium to that capacity of they want the GF.

 

[RUNVS]

Wow what a great mentality from someone who supports a team that could benefit from that inequality in future. Kudos for being able to thing critically - breath af fresh air on BF really (but let's face it, many of the reasonable posters can't get their 2c in cos of the one-eyed trolls).

I am actually all for the AFL setting an 80k minimum capacity in order for WA/SA/NSW/QLD to hold the Grand Final IF the higher placed team is from that state.
Then it is up to the non-Vic states to build a stadium to that capacity of they want the GF.

I think an 80k rule is fine as well. If a stadium can fit 80,000 people then it is fit to host an AFL Grand Final, and if a team that has the right to host a Grand Final does not have an 80,000 seat stadium then they have the right to pick which 80,000+ seat stadium the game is played at.

 

[Senor M]

What makes you think the break away league would be lesser? If the AFL suddenly just became the VFL their TV rights deal would tank. The VFL would also have a lot more teams who need support than the break away league does.

This is based off a quick thought process (rather than deep analysis) but if I was the TV rights holder (so obviously a imaginary concept between 7 & Foxtel) which alternative seems more appealing to me.

Option #1- 'AFL/VFL'

• 5 games a week
• A supporter base that already demonstrates that they are prepared to pay for Foxtel (based off my idea, no public figures that the majority of Foxtel subscribers who subscribe for AFL would be in Victoria due to the way the TV deal is currently developed)
• A competition with over 120 years of history
• Built in "blockbusters" & "historical rivalries" that can be used as major advertising selling points within the season
• Has the financial security of ownership of a Stadium (Marvel Stadium)

Option #2 - 'Breakaway League'

• 4 games a week
• Fans are used to seeing their club on FTA TV every week (and less likely to be willing to purchase Foxtel/Kayo/ insert paid subscription here)
• A Brand New competition
• Despite having a few wealthy clubs; doesn't (YET) have strong financial security.

Then add in the lure for players in the 'Breakaway League' wanting to achieve the 'childhood dream' of winning an AFL Grand Final on the MCG (all current AFL players have grown up with that as the 'pinnacle' of AFL. There would be many players who would be prepared to move from the 'Breakaway' to the AFL late in their careers to achieve this dream, leading to the AFL/VFL being seen as the 'superior' of the two competition by many supporters.

As I said-- this is probably worthy of it's own thread, but I don't think the 'Breakaway League' would have as much appeal as some believe.

 

[RUNVS]

This is based off a quick thought process (rather than deep analysis) but if I was the TV rights holder (so obviously a imaginary concept between 7 & Foxtel) which alternative seems more appealing to me.

Option #1- 'AFL/VFL'

• 5 games a week
• A supporter base that already demonstrates that they are prepared to pay for Foxtel (based off my idea, no public figures that the majority of Foxtel subscribers who subscribe for AFL would be in Victoria due to the way the TV deal is currently developed)
• A competition with over 120 years of history
• Built in "blockbusters" & "historical rivalries" that can be used as major advertising selling points within the season
• Has the financial security of ownership of a Stadium (Marvel Stadium)

Option #2 - 'Breakaway League'

• 4 games a week
• Fans are used to seeing their club on FTA TV every week (and less likely to be willing to purchase Foxtel/Kayo/ insert paid subscription here)
• A Brand New competition
• Despite having a few wealthy clubs; doesn't (YET) have strong financial security.

Then add in the lure for players in the 'Breakaway League' wanting to achieve the 'childhood dream' of winning an AFL Grand Final on the MCG (all current AFL players have grown up with that as the 'pinnacle' of AFL. There would be many players who would be prepared to move from the 'Breakaway' to the AFL late in their careers to achieve this dream, leading to the AFL/VFL being seen as the 'superior' of the two competition by many supporters.

As I said-- this is probably worthy of it's own thread, but I don't think the 'Breakaway League' would have as much appeal as some believe.

There is one massive thing you are not taking into consideration. Foxtel is not paying the big dollars for customers they already have, that means nothing to them. They pay the big dollars for potential customers, so the big money comes because they want to grow their customer base. There is not a lot of growth left in Victoria.

Also while the break away league would need to support GWS and Gold Coast, which isn't ideal, the VFL would need to support St Kilda, North Melbourne, Melbourne and Western Bulldogs. Not to mention there is a huge shine taken off the code if it was solely a Victorian game. The Tasmanian government could probably be convinced to switch to the break away league too with the promise of a Tasmanian team in the next 5 years.

Compared that to the break away league, which would have a much more national feel, which would make it feel more prestigious.

 

[Big Crow]

How would it become a serious problem?

Anecdotally, I’m seeing more people begin to disengage here.

In short if you continue to have a competition without integrity then eventually you might not have a competition anymore.

 

[telsor]

In an ideal world the non-Victorian clubs form their own league, a league of 8 teams to start with, with the richer clubs making sure GWS and Gold Coast survive, which they would be able to do comfortable, and the league holds out for the poorer VFL teams to start dying, and coaxing over a few of the richer Victorian teams.

Not going to happen, but it would be interesting to see what would happen if it did. The VFL with 10 teams would be reasonably screwed compared to the breakaway league.

People seem to forget that Vic is over 50% of the market (Crowds, FTA TV ratings, and given we're the only ones not to get all our team's games on FTA, probably far higher that 50% of PayTV).

We also pay through the nose to the AFL as part of the MCG & Docklands deals, so make up a disproportionate level of the AFLs revenue.

Non Vic clubs breaking away would never be OK with the rich non Vic clubs, because the two of them would have to do a MASSIVELY larger share of the financial costs of the league (AKA the other clubs).


So yeah, go for it.

 

[Senor M]

There is one massive thing you are not taking into consideration. Foxtel is not paying the big dollars for customers they already have, that means nothing to them. They pay the big dollars for potential customers, so the big money comes because they want to grow their customer base. There is not a lot of growth left in Victoria.

Also while the break away league would need to support GWS and Gold Coast, which isn't ideal, the VFL would need to support St Kilda, North Melbourne, Melbourne and Western Bulldogs. Not to mention there is a huge shine taken off the code if it was solely a Victorian game. The Tasmanian government could probably be convinced to switch to the break away league too with the promise of a Tasmanian team in the next 5 years.

Compared that to the break away league, which would have a much more national feel, which would make it feel more prestigious.

As I said--- my response is a quick thought process & that this topic is more likely worthy of it's own thread (rather than a generic #VICBIAS discussion).

You've made some valid & interesting points--- but I believe that both sides are currently underdeveloped as a thought process rather than truely analysing the potential realities of what would occur with a Break away league. I'm just going to finish my side of this discussion (until there's a thread dedicated to it) with an anecdotal thought.


Think about the interview responses from players that get drafted to the AFL or early in their career. There's 100's of times I can remember hearing that "I'm excited to play in front of the big crowd at the MCG", whether that's regarding finals, blockbuster AFL games, etc. I can't remember hearing too many times that "I'm excited to play in a national competition". That's the lure of convincing players to join one league over the other IMO.

 

[wagz]

A good point perfectly made.

I see people countering this point saying things like “your club signed up for this”, or “if you don’t like it then don’t follow the league”. I love my club, but honestly having the deciding match for the entire season locked into an away venue regardless of win/loss makes a mockery of the league and it does sometimes make me want to stop following.

There is a growing sentiment here in SA that the league is severely slanted, and I can see it becoming a serious problem for the AFL if they don’t address it.

The only decision here to be made is by you not the AFL, the AFL is locked into the MCG hosting the GF for the next 37 years. You may as well stop supporting today if thats your deciding factor