West Coast Eagles 2021

[BF Tiger]

Was I supposed to take this as a suggestion? Perhaps this is the wrong place for any sort of meaningful discussion, too Bay13 !

Home games as they are currently structured is indeed the basis of pure footy clubs income & the income needs to be protected, even if the meaning of a home game is redefined, e.g an MCG game that is open to both competing club members. Leaving aside MCC & AFL members there are only 60k (approx) seats and a full stadium has an appeal, sure beats a half full arena.
Sure, you can knock it & it takes no thought to do that.

No, you weren’t meant to take it as a suggestion I was just trying to highlight that if we don’t have “home” games then clubs are even less than franchises.

You wanted a solution from me and I’ve suggested less Melbourne clubs. What’s your alternative?

I don’t know what else you want from me. Far smarter people than me have not solved the inequality in 30 years yet you want me to do it after four beers on a hot Thursday arvo in the off-season.

 

[mcfazza28]

Where have I denied the issue? My only point is that there is no easy solution to it. Ideally each team would play each other twice, "home" and "away", but with 18 sides it's not possible in such a physically demanding sport. It can be solved if you're happy to reduce the number of teams. I'd be happy to... as long as it is not my team. And if it was to be then I have to make a choice about where and how I then follow the game. The issue would then take care of itself... less Melbourne teams means they are forced to travel more, maybe not as much as non-Vic sides but a closer balance.



Those clubs that choose to travel might get a raw deal but when money does the talking what do you expect? Tell the players that their salaries are being reduced because the broadcast deal is 20% less because North and Footscray want Friday night matches and I'm sure all the players would agree to North and Footscray having Sunday home games at weird venues.

If you're happy for Richmond and Collingwood to give up funds you'll of course be happy for the vast bank account of the Eagles to be socialised too.

Good post. I think the AFL has massive competing objectives meaning tough decisions must be made for fair fixtures:

Revenue means they need double ups between the big 6 Victorian clubs at the MCG, but this distorts the fixture as
- Richmond and Collingwood get too many games at the MCG
- Geelong play Richmond and Collingwood at the MCG whilst smaller Victorian and Interstate get tough Kardinia Park
- Hawthorn play Richmond and Collingwood at the MCG and small Victorian and interstate often get Tasmania
- Melbourne play Richmond and Collingwood at the MCG whilst small Victorian and Interstate often get Alice Springs
- Geelong get a true home ground advantage but have to play Richmond and Collingwood at their home ground


You are correct about the fact that fairness of time slot will reduce revenue and cost the big clubs money used to subsidise the small Victorian.

I had an interesting exchange with Simpkinonthedockofthebay where he made me understand the loss of a club and the revenue reduction the AFL would suffer.

However, I struggle to see how we can have a fair fixture with the big club double ups the AFL and big Victorian clubs want without less clubs. 20 clubs with 19 rounds can’t do this.

Only 14 clubs with 26 rounds or 12 with 22 rounds can do this as you get home and away and fairness of fixture. Less bigger clubs can fairly battle for time slots as they all have large support.

Then the big clubs don’t need to subsidise smaller Victorian. We need to look at this as the Australian Football League as it is a national league.

I’m lucky to support a big club. But I have articulated earlier where I made my sacrifice via Subiaco’s sacrifice for the Eagles. Unfortunately, the best solution may be the ultimate sacrifice.

Every state has sacrificed in different ways and will need to continue to as this frankenleague needs to solve the problem of a fair fixture with revenue critical double ups worth more than the small Victorian clubs. The AFL fixtures and small team slots prove that.

 

[Kwality]

No, you weren’t meant to take it as a suggestion I was just trying to highlight that if we don’t have “home” games then clubs are even less than franchises.

You wanted a solution from me and I’ve suggested less Melbourne clubs. What’s your alternative?

I don’t know what else you want from me. Far smarter people than me have not solved the inequality in 30 years yet you want me to do it after four beers on a hot Thursday arvo in the off-season.

i'll take that as you dont have a workable solution. Try looking outside the square, even look at the 1990 finals series to understand how far we have come from the State League days.


As for the trite franchise NONSENSE :

Anyone from In The Wings been offered this year? I moved from around 12,000 to 8,000 this year

In case waiting lists are something 100 year old footy clubs are unfamiliar with, In the Wings is a waiting list for one of those dastardly franchises.

 

[BF Tiger]

i'll take that as you dont have a workable solution. Try looking outside the square, even look at the 1990 finals series to understand how far we have come from the State League days.


As for the trite franchise NONSENSE :


In case waiting lists are something 100 year old footy clubs are unfamiliar with, In the Wings is a waiting list for one of those dastardly franchises.

You finally worked it out... I don’t have a solution.

Have you got figures for how many Sonics fans are now Thunder fans?

 

[Coach_Required]

LOL

So playing the Eagles at Optus whilst hubbing in WA versus playing them in a hub in QLD would make absolutely no difference at all?

BTW how many games has Richmond played at the new Optus stadium? 1 or is it 2 versus Freo?

We played Brisbane in Brisbane and Port in Port and we still won the only flag ever to be have been played outside Victoria and both those teams were way better than West Coast in 2020.

We can still win flags by playing matches in your own bubble, shame West coast seem to continually trip over themselves even when they get "comfortable" home games.

 

[beema limapep]

We played Brisbane in Brisbane and Port in Port and we still won the only flag ever to be have been played outside Victoria and both those teams were way better than West Coast in 2020.

We can still win flags by playing matches in your own bubble, shame West coast seem to continually trip over themselves even when they get "comfortable" home games.

Remember all the Eagles fans who went the early crow in 2020, saying that they had played the afl off a break with the fixture they were handed in temrs of easy teams in the qld bubble and then a string of home games in perth?

Isnt it odd that when they were (again) found put to be not good enough in 2020, the same logic not only disappeared but flipped in its head and the fixturing became a major reason they didnt win the flag.

And here we are.

Amazing the excuses people will find when they cant face the fact that their team is no good.

 

[Kwality]

Good post. I think the AFL has massive competing objectives meaning tough decisions must be made for fair fixtures:

Revenue means they need double ups between the big 6 Victorian clubs at the MCG, but this distorts the fixture as
- Richmond and Collingwood get too many games at the MCG
- Geelong play Richmond and Collingwood at the MCG whilst smaller Victorian and Interstate get tough Kardinia Park
- Hawthorn play Richmond and Collingwood at the MCG and small Victorian and interstate often get Tasmania
- Melbourne play Richmond and Collingwood at the MCG whilst small Victorian and Interstate often get Alice Springs
- Geelong get a true home ground advantage but have to play Richmond and Collingwood at their home ground


You are correct about the fact that fairness of time slot will reduce revenue and cost the big clubs money used to subsidise the small Victorian.

I had an interesting exchange with Simpkinonthedockofthebay where he made me understand the loss of a club and the revenue reduction the AFL would suffer.

However, I struggle to see how we can have a fair fixture with the big club double ups the AFL and big Victorian clubs want without less clubs. 20 clubs with 19 rounds can’t do this.

Only 14 clubs with 26 rounds or 12 with 22 rounds can do this as you get home and away and fairness of fixture. Less bigger clubs can fairly battle for time slots as they all have large support.

Then the big clubs don’t need to subsidise smaller Victorian. We need to look at this as the Australian Football League as it is a national league.

I’m lucky to support a big club. But I have articulated earlier where I made my sacrifice via Subiaco’s sacrifice for the Eagles. Unfortunately, the best solution may be the ultimate sacrifice.

Every state has sacrificed in different ways and will need to continue to as this frankenleague needs to solve the problem of a fair fixture with revenue critical double ups worth more than the small Victorian clubs. The AFL fixtures and small team slots prove that.

The revenue issue can be addressed in the quest for a fairer/equitable comp.
My contention is the old concept of home & away is a State League model that has been bastardised beyond its useful life., yet it still a cornerstone of how the AFL looks at the game.
Again, the membership revenue is another issue - see the Hawks sponsorship deal with Tas where home games are played in Launceston & make up games fill the coffers of membership dollars. Seriously what is wrong with that?
We will not get change without addressing the dollars.

Do the Melbourne clubs that sell/FIXture home games interstate (dollars) miss out on membership games in Melbourne.

Anyone who cares about the game understand the problems we face but parochial self interest ensures any discussion on the issues are usually drowned out by that self interest. I'm guilty of that too, you get return nonsense with a comment of the same calibre.

 

[Kwality]

If you're happy for Richmond and Collingwood to give up funds you'll of course be happy for the vast bank account of the Eagles to be socialised too.

Same old hubris, socialised?

I acknowledged an example of the current FIXture with clubs benefitting at the expense of others - thats the claim of all Docklands tenants bar the Bombers, ignore it if you need.
You'd be aware of Collingwoods agreement over the Queens birthday game - it can be done. Freo did it with Gold Coast when Metricon was being used for the Commonwealth Games.

So simply, the Eagles wouldnt benefit financially. You are so locked in to the old home & away model.

 

[Kwality]

Remember all the Eagles fans who went the early crow in 2020, saying that they had played the afl off a break with the fixture they were handed in temrs of easy teams in the qld bubble and then a string of home games in perth?

Isnt it odd that when they were (again) found put to be not good enough in 2020, the same logic not only disappeared but flipped in its head and the fixturing became a major reason they didnt win the flag.

And here we are.

Amazing the excuses people will find when they cant face the fact that their team is no good.

When you dont get to a Prelim, you havent been a contender & even then you look to improve your list as the Tiges did with Lynch.

 

[Obeanie1]

We played Brisbane in Brisbane and Port in Port and we still won the only flag ever to be have been played outside Victoria and both those teams were way better than West Coast in 2020.

We can still win flags by playing matches in your own bubble, shame West coast seem to continually trip over themselves even when they get "comfortable" home games.

Typical stupid reply from a Richmond nuff nuff..

Totally avoided the issue......And the obvious.

Only time will tell if Richmond are good enough to win in a Perth hub v Eagles.

To date Tigers have played once there in three seasons. A 47 point thumping.

Finally in 2021 Richmond have a challenging draw worthy of being the premier team. Multiple interstate trips and no super soft run at home leading into finals. If they win this season I will 'tip my hat'.

 

[Gavin Excell]

Good post. I think the AFL has massive competing objectives meaning tough decisions must be made for fair fixtures:

Revenue means they need double ups between the big 6 Victorian clubs at the MCG, but this distorts the fixture as
- Richmond and Collingwood get too many games at the MCG
- Geelong play Richmond and Collingwood at the MCG whilst smaller Victorian and Interstate get tough Kardinia Park
- Hawthorn play Richmond and Collingwood at the MCG and small Victorian and interstate often get Tasmania
- Melbourne play Richmond and Collingwood at the MCG whilst small Victorian and Interstate often get Alice Springs
- Geelong get a true home ground advantage but have to play Richmond and Collingwood at their home ground


You are correct about the fact that fairness of time slot will reduce revenue and cost the big clubs money used to subsidise the small Victorian.

I had an interesting exchange with Simpkinonthedockofthebay where he made me understand the loss of a club and the revenue reduction the AFL would suffer.

However, I struggle to see how we can have a fair fixture with the big club double ups the AFL and big Victorian clubs want without less clubs. 20 clubs with 19 rounds can’t do this.

Only 14 clubs with 26 rounds or 12 with 22 rounds can do this as you get home and away and fairness of fixture. Less bigger clubs can fairly battle for time slots as they all have large support.

Then the big clubs don’t need to subsidise smaller Victorian. We need to look at this as the Australian Football League as it is a national league.

I’m lucky to support a big club. But I have articulated earlier where I made my sacrifice via Subiaco’s sacrifice for the Eagles. Unfortunately, the best solution may be the ultimate sacrifice.

Every state has sacrificed in different ways and will need to continue to as this frankenleague needs to solve the problem of a fair fixture with revenue critical double ups worth more than the small Victorian clubs. The AFL fixtures and small team slots prove that.

Interesting post and agree with the need for sacrifice but the only problem is that that sacrifice will be felt far more heavily by smaller Vic clubs than anyone else

 

[Kwality]

Interesting post and agree with the need for sacrifice but the only problem is that that sacrifice will be felt far more heavily by smaller Vic clubs than anyone else

How the sacrifice is shared is a different issue to whether we retain the current model of FIXture, the old home & away model, the beneficiaries entitlement versus fair/equitable.
We saw the AFL spring into action when Covid restrictions might see WA clubs have conditions that were not available to the Vic clubs - quick smart is not beyond them?

 

[Gavin Excell]

How the sacrifice is shared is a different issue to whether we retain the current model of FIXture, the old home & away model, the beneficiaries entitlement versus fair/equitable.
We saw the AFL spring into action when Covid restrictions might see WA clubs have conditions that were not available to the Vic clubs - quick smart is not beyond them?

Let's be clear here - there is a call for less clubs in Vic. It's not as if it's a couple of fewer home games..It's the death of clubs

 

[Kwality]

Let's be clear here - there is a call for less clubs in Vic. It's not as if it's a couple of fewer home games..It's the death of clubs

Its not the only conversation, like the GF arrangement, it is sleazy but at the moment you live it yet still oppose its effect.
Less clubs, more clubs are both discussed.

Dealing with the current competition & addressing the outdated home & away concept as a cornerstone of the comp is the cntext of my comments.

Trust we are clear Gav.

 

[Gavin Excell]

Its not the only conversation, like the GF arrangement, it is sleazy but at the moment you live it yet still oppose its effect.
Less clubs, more clubs are both discussed.

Dealing with the current competition & addressing the outdated home & away concept as a cornerstone of the comp is the cntext of my comments.

Trust we are clear Gav.

Guess im just calling out what is being called for here and not hidden behind euphemisms

 

[Gavin Excell]

Ultimate solutions

 

[mcfazza28]

Its not the only conversation, like the GF arrangement, it is sleazy but at the moment you live it yet still oppose its effect.
Less clubs, more clubs are both discussed.

Dealing with the current competition & addressing the outdated home & away concept as a cornerstone of the comp is the cntext of my comments.

Trust we are clear Gav.

Crystal on your point that we need a full open conversation about the future structure of the league and fixture.

We need to explore options. I see the options as:
1. 18 teams with 17 rounds- too few games commercially
2. 20 teams with 19 rounds- need the cash to subsidise 2 new teams on top of subsidising GWS, GC and small Victorian and too few games commercially
3. 12 teams with 22 rounds- optimal fairness but too few games commercially
5. 14 teams with 26 rounds- next optimal fairness but too few games commercially
6. Conferences- unfairness due to conference strength, the need for big Victorian double ups, commercial disadvantage of not being in the conference with the big Victorian teams and travel for interstate if they are in the big Victorian conference

I have left out the status quo as we are looking at new options.

As an Eagles fan not so interested in the Fremantle double up as would rather play Richmond, Collingwood, Adelaide, Sydney and Geelong. Perfect conferences if being selfish are:

Conference 1-
Collingwood
Carlton
Richmond
Essendon
Hawthorn
Geelong
West Coast
Adelaide
Sydney

Conference 2-
Western Bulldogs
St Kilda
Melbourne
North Melbourne
Fremantle
Port Adelaide
GWS
Brisbane
GC

You get the big Victorian & big Victorian v big interstate double ups, modern rivalries for big Victorian and big Interstate and revenue. The problem is the travel for interstate but it will be home and away 16 rounds with 6 cross conference games (3 home and 3 away) rotating as the current 17 + 5 should work.

There are many issues with my conferences as conference 2 has much poorer commercial options as don’t get assured big Victorian or derbies.

However, it seems money is the biggest issue so let’s group the biggest and financially strongest clubs together as a reward for running their clubs well.

They can also kick a little in to subsidise conference 2. Promotion from conference 2 to conference 1 is based on criteria such as crowd numbers and financial performance.

Conference 2 clubs have a fair point about poorer games not allowing better crowd numbers. All conference 2 except GWS & GC have had many years to improve and haven’t yet shown high end results.

I know this isn’t perfect and many have made longer and more detailed proposals before but it’s will sure stimulate conversation.

Also, it’s only my proposal. And I’m by no means special.

 

[Grin]

Typical stupid reply from a Richmond nuff nuff..

Totally avoided the issue......And the obvious.

Only time will tell if Richmond are good enough to win in a Perth hub v Eagles.

To date Tigers have played once there in three seasons. A 47 point thumping.

Finally in 2021 Richmond have a challenging draw worthy of being the premier team. Multiple interstate trips and no super soft run at home leading into finals. If they win this season I will 'tip my hat'.

Really pathetic post.
Playing and winning in Perth is no indication of premiership worthiness. The Eagles are currently an ordinary side, despite all the leg ups you get over most of the rest of the comp. Constantly whinging that you're entitled to even more doesn't mean you are.

I await you humourless insults and yet more mindless whinging, in leu of any reasoned argument based on fact.

 

[Coach_Required]

Typical stupid reply from a Richmond nuff nuff..

Totally avoided the issue......And the obvious.

Only time will tell if Richmond are good enough to win in a Perth hub v Eagles.

To date Tigers have played once there in three seasons. A 47 point thumping.

Finally in 2021 Richmond have a challenging draw worthy of being the premier team. Multiple interstate trips and no super soft run at home leading into finals. If they win this season I will 'tip my hat'.

Richmond nuff nuff, lol

Then goes on about a harder fixture because we play you in Perth

We dont have to win games in Perth to win the flag, but we do have to win the games that count (Port Adelaide in Adelaide in a Prelim, Geelong at the GABBA on a neutral venue) something you clowns continually fail to do.

But hey Im the one missing the point We also beat your brave team on a neutral venue too, it seems all Eagles fans care about is making sure you can win enough games in Perth, might explain the trend of you guys tripping over your own feet when it counts the most.

 

[beema limapep]

Really pathetic post.
Playing and winning in Perth is no indication of premiership worthiness. The Eagles are currently an ordinary side, despite all the leg ups you get over most of the rest of the comp. Constantly whinging that you're entitled to even more doesn't mean you are.

I await you humourless insults and yet more mindless whinging, in leu of any reasoned argument based on fact.

Exactly. Why would playing a feam who ultimaty finsihed in the bottom half of the 8 (and who this year may not even be the best team in there state) in a home and away game define anything other than 4 points?

Beat a better team (port) on their home deck in finals.

 

[Kwality]

Crystal on your point that we need a full open conversation about the future structure of the league and fixture.

We need to explore options. I see the options as:
1. 18 teams with 17 rounds- too few games commercially
2. 20 teams with 19 rounds- need the cash to subsidise 2 new teams on top of subsidising GWS, GC and small Victorian and too few games commercially
3. 12 teams with 22 rounds- optimal fairness but too few games commercially
5. 14 teams with 26 rounds- next optimal fairness but too few games commercially
6. Conferences- unfairness due to conference strength, the need for big Victorian double ups, commercial disadvantage of not being in the conference with the big Victorian teams and travel for interstate if they are in the big Victorian conference

I have left out the status quo as we are looking at new options.

As an Eagles fan not so interested in the Fremantle double up as would rather play Richmond, Collingwood, Adelaide, Sydney and Geelong. Perfect conferences if being selfish are:

Conference 1-
Collingwood
Carlton
Richmond
Essendon
Hawthorn
Geelong
West Coast
Adelaide
Sydney

Conference 2-
Western Bulldogs
St Kilda
Melbourne
North Melbourne
Fremantle
Port Adelaide
GWS
Brisbane
GC

You get the big Victorian & big Victorian v big interstate double ups, modern rivalries for big Victorian and big Interstate and revenue. The problem is the travel for interstate but it will be home and away 16 rounds with 6 cross conference games (3 home and 3 away) rotating as the current 17 + 5 should work.

There are many issues with my conferences as conference 2 has much poorer commercial options as don’t get assured big Victorian or derbies.

However, it seems money is the biggest issue so let’s group the biggest and financially strongest clubs together as a reward for running their clubs well.

They can also kick a little in to subsidise conference 2. Promotion from conference 2 to conference 1 is based on criteria such as crowd numbers and financial performance.

Conference 2 clubs have a fair point about poorer games not allowing better crowd numbers. All conference 2 except GWS & GC have had many years to improve and haven’t yet shown high end results.

I know this isn’t perfect and many have made longer and more detailed proposals before but it’s will sure stimulate conversation.

Also, it’s only my proposal. And I’m by no means special.

Constructive suggestion, & that is not denying the status quo is the starting point.

The weakness in conferences to me is effectively challenging the parochial nature of the games support base. Victorians constantly tell us their support is for the club & the only thing the game offers is their clubs brand?

If a conference system is effectively div 1 & div 2, will that only result in the inequities of home & away being further entrenched.

As one who supports an elite comp, a div 1/2 should provide that as the best players will want to play at the highest level. The professionalism/money of a national comp ensures that in a way that the State League model of the 1900s could not. Restraint of trade will become an even bigger consideration for the game from the individual to the AFL.

 

[Captain_Bender]

Richmond flog West Coast at a neutral venure, but West Coast supporters are still saying "just wait until we play you at home", it's like they know the only place they have a chance to beat Richmond is at their safe space.

 

[Forward Press]

Richmond flog West Coast at a neutral venure, but West Coast supporters are still saying "just wait until we play you at home", it's like they know the only place they have a chance to beat Richmond is at their safe space.

Of your last 20 posts, 17 have been about West Coast.

Keep it up, sport.

 

[Tom_Thumb]

Richmond flog West Coast at a neutral venure, but West Coast supporters are still saying "just wait until we play you at home", it's like they know the only place they have a chance to beat Richmond is at their safe space.

Neutral venue as in 1 hour plane flight for you, 4 hours for us.

 

[mcfazza28]

Constructive suggestion, & that is not denying the status quo is the starting point.

The weakness in conferences to me is effectively challenging the parochial nature of the games support base. Victorians constantly tell us their support is for the club & the only thing the game offers is their clubs brand?

If a conference system is effectively div 1 & div 2, will that only result in the inequities of home & away being further entrenched.

As one who supports an elite comp, a div 1/2 should provide that as the best players will want to play at the highest level. The professionalism/money of a national comp ensures that in a way that the State League model of the 1900s could not. Restraint of trade will become an even bigger consideration for the game from the individual to the AFL.

It was a starting point, thanks for recognising that and seeing the thinly veiled division 1 and 2. I agree the big Victorian clubs get a huge advantage and that’s why I would have loved to get Brisbane, Port, Fremantle into conference one. Problem is you have 13 teams in division 1 with 5 in division 2.

So let’s move this from American conferences to British divisions.

Maybe division 2 could be expanded to-
- Western Bulldogs
- Melbourne
- North Melbourne
- St Kilda
- GWS
- GC
- Tasmania
- Port Melbourne

14 round season with a top 5. Promotion would be based on winning the finals and meeting the minimum membership, crowd and turnover numbers for Division 1.

Division 1-
- Carlton
- Collingwood
- Richmond
- Essendon
- Hawthorn
- Geelong
- West Coast
- Adelaide
- Sydney
- Brisbane
- Port Adelaide
- Fremantle

6 Victorian and 6 interstate!
- Victorian teams get 16 Victorian games and 6 Interstate
- Interstate teams get 12 home state and 10 interstate (except Brisbane but couldn’t carry a 13th team)

This recognises the importance of the big Victorian fixtures, gives Victorians loads of chance to watch their teams.

Division 1 is a big club, big money, big boys league open to anyone who is big enough. You can say Sydney, Brisbane and Port may be smaller clubs but it’s a national league and Victoria already have half the teams.