Opinion Selling Home Games

[bh90210fan]

In a normal year, selling a home game should not be allowed for the obvious reason that it provides an unfair advantage to a rich club. But this is not a normal year, and West Coast will not be getting a disproportionate share of home games - this would have been a 7th game at Optus, less than ladder leading Port Adelaide will get. If integrity and fairness are to be the yardsticks from now on, lets look at all the inequities - in my view the AFL regularly seeks to maximize revenue at the expense of fairness, so not sure why the line was drawn here....

It’s fear

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Simple question but I’m sure there is a wide range of thought on the idea if it should be allowed.

Should clubs be able to sell home games like WCE tried to with North for the last round of the year?

AFL set to reject West Coast and North’s Perth proposal – The Roar

www.google.com.au

The Eagles were set to pay North $700k to relocate their “home”
Game from QLD to Optus stadium in round 18 this year, which has now been rejected by the AFL for integrity reasons.

Should this be allowed? Is this draft tampering or a fundamental integrity issue for the whole competition from a ladder finish perspective? Or simply good business if the clubs are willing?

Particularly following COVID, if the richer clubs can support the lower clubs financially, does this benefit the game as a whole? Or will this promote the cycle of the rich clubs continue to play finals or change the make up of the top 4?

Looking at the WCE as a case point. If they were to be able to swap the location of the game to Optus, could that potentially be the difference between finishing 2nd or 3rd? which is a big change to the makeup of the season. Odds are they should still win easily, but a home game could potentially become a huge percentage booster or possibly allows for a greater rest period before finals without extra travel.

Interesting counter view from the AFL was Port in conjunction with the AFL and the Vic government in short managed to organise a similar deal in China, with the Saints selling a home game to play in China for an undisclosed financial gain. Is that different as it’s about promoting the game rather than ladder position or the lead up to finals preparation and should therefor be allowed?

I am very split on the idea. On one side of the fence, if it enables a greater spread of cashflow and equality amongst the rich and poor it’s a benefit. On the flip side, it certainly is an integrity concern from a fixture perspective and has the potential to change a team’s premiership odds and ladder position to the detriment to opposition clubs.

Overall, I don’t want to see clubs selling home games at the end of the season when they aren’t in finals contention to gain a large financial benefit, but could this become the new norm if clubs can gain an extra $1m in post COVID seasons?

 

[Kwality]

The AFL have no problem with selling games to China, NT, Q, ACT & Tas, not WA or SA though.

Integrity/the AFL, pull the other leg,

 

[Colonial]

The AFL have no problem with selling games to China, NT, Q, ACT & Tas, not WA or SA though.

Integrity/the AFL, pull the other leg,

Rather large difference

You are basically paying to get an away game turned into a home game.

 

[Dirty Bird]

i dont get the issue
The AFL is happy to give Hawthorn a home game vs Adelaide this week

Yet North would get better compensation from the Eagles wouldnt they than playing in Queensland?

 

[eggtardo]

if you want to sell them pre season so be it.... but not during the season

 

[Dez!]

The AFL have no problem with selling games to China, NT, Q, ACT & Tas, not WA or SA though.

Integrity/the AFL, pull the other leg,

Fair difference between "selling games" to China, NT, Q, ACT & Tas that are organised and fixtured before the season and one team attempting to buy an extra home game during the season.

 

[Gralin]

Yes I don't think rich clubs should be able to buy additional home games during the season to change the fixture after its released

 

[windyhill]

Would n.melb do it if they were a chance to play finals ? Poor from them.

 

[oak79]

How many games will Port have in Adelaide this year ?
How many games will Brisbane and GC have at home ?

West Coast will play 6 / 17 games at Optus. It would have been 7. Hardly injust.

Richmond played their final 10 games at MCG last year - then played a team in the GF that had hardly been there all year.

In year were money is just about non-existent, it's a pretty poor decision, and North should be rightfully annoyed by it.

 

[Cotchins Hair Piece]

Yes I don't think rich clubs should be able to buy additional home games during the season to change the fixture after its released

This in a nutshell. Big difference between selling to ‘neutral’ venues before the fixture is released and attempting to buy an extra home game at your ‘fortress’ during the season.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Is it still tanking if your just genuinely a bad team and 99% chance to loose regardless and can Atleast make a profit on the way?

More concerned about the impact it has at the top of the ladder over the bottom but that’s probably due to Ports position

 

[Inspecta Gadget]

Wuhan gifted us a deadly virus, I think the least we can do is gift them a North Melbourne game

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

How many games will Port have in Adelaide this year ?

Think we get 8 home games by the end of the year. Considering this year, can’t complain too much but would always take an opportunity for more

 

[the big lebowski]

I can certainly understand why it was knocked back. But the whole season is so unnatural, would it really make a big deal if it was a one off?

North has copped an extra hit this year becuase we take in reduced membership dollars from playing home games in tassie. And that has been a double up as we haven’t even received that money.

 

[oak79]

Think we get 8 home games by the end of the year. Considering this year, can’t complain too much but would always take an opportunity for more

Exactly - so how can people be upset with WCE having 7 home games, when other top teams like Port get 8, and Brisbane has just about all their games in QLD.

Financially it made sense, it could hardly be called unfair. People being up in arms about WCE trying to 'buy a game' need to settle - they would be remiss if they didnt ask the question. Just like Freo did.

Freo also hosted a Suns "home" game a couple of years ago.

 

[nick1408]

Personally, I have no issues with it. On the field I see it as no different to say Essendon hosting Richmond at the MCG.

Off the field I can see issues when the likes of Collingwood, Richmond, West Coast and any other club that can afford it start buying up as many 'away' games as possible and the precedent it sets. I assume that's why the AFL has knocked it on the head.

I would also assume the North members would have something to say come next year if the deal continued. If it's for only one year (and I assume it is) then the purported $800k seems like a lot of money West Coast can afford to hand over. The stadium deal must be excellent if they can afford that!

 

[projectv]

If West Coast want to spend another week in Perth I reckon we'd also take $700k to move our game there in round 17.

 

[Dez!]

I can certainly understand why it was knocked back. But the whole season is so unnatural, would it really make a big deal if it was a one off?

North has copped an extra hit this year becuase we take in reduced membership dollars from playing home games in tassie. And that has been a double up as we haven’t even received that money.

Then you set a precedent.

Want to sell home games? Do it before the season is fixtured.

Allowing a team to bribe a team into an extra home game that could affect finals positions isn't the smartest thing the AFL could do.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Exactly - so how can people be upset with WCE having 7 home games, when other top teams like Port get 8, and Brisbane has just about all their games in QLD.

Financially it made sense, it could hardly be called unfair. People being up in arms about WCE trying to 'buy a game' need to settle - they would be remiss if they didnt ask the question. Just like Freo did.

Freo also hosted a Suns "home" game a couple of years ago.

Certainly a fair argument as especially this season where nothing about the fixture is fair.

Read somewhere that North were Set to loose $3Mil this season alone like probably most clubs if not more. If another club is willing to cover 1/4 of their yearly losses is that more than justifiable in the long run? Possible

Not sure it’s a long term solution though past the COVOD era. If they were ever going to approve it, this could have been the time too...

 

[Spanish_Fly]

How many games will Port have in Adelaide this year ?
How many games will Brisbane and GC have at home ?

West Coast will play 6 / 17 games at Optus. It would have been 7. Hardly injust.

Richmond played their final 10 games at MCG last year - then played a team in the GF that had hardly been there all year.

In year were money is just about non-existent, it's a pretty poor decision, and North should be rightfully annoyed by it.

No we did not, not sure why people keep repeating this lie,

 

[HaroLad]

Can't believe people are even entertaining this.

If the precedent were set it might allow clubs like Richmond to go from 17 games a year at their home ground to 20 etc.

Just imagine Eddie sooking about it if West Coast were allowed.

 

[Sparkle]

Freo also hosted a Suns "home" game a couple of years ago.

That was scheduled, organised and agreed to well in advance of the 2018 season though, and only occurred due to Metricon being occupied by the Commonwealth Games

Fair difference in the Dockers-Suns situation a couple of years ago to West Coast deciding they want to buy an extra home game whilst the season is in progress

 

[projectv]

Then you set a precedent.

Want to sell home games? Do it before the season is fixtured.

Allowing a team to bribe a team into an extra home game that could affect finals positions isn't the smartest thing the AFL could do.

This season has not seen the fixture released up front. It's come through in dribs and drabs all year. No club has been able to do any form of long term planning when it comes to where games are played, so whilst it would be unusual in a regular season it's a reasonable request to make in a Covid impacted season.

 

[Blackas87]

The AFL have no problem with selling games to China, NT, Q, ACT & Tas, not WA or SA though.

Integrity/the AFL, pull the other leg,

WA and SA have teams that play there. The other locations don’t have teams which is why those locations buy games for those areas.

Thought that was pretty easy to understand.

you don’t see the integrity issues with West Coast buying an extra home game?

 

[Underarm]

If it's organised before the season, I'm fine with it.

North Melbourne wouldn't have agreed to it pre season, nor would they if they had any chance of making Finals.

Teams shouldn't be able to buy success, or sell losses.