Geelongs 150 million government investment - Is this fair on the rest?
- Thread starter GoEaglesGoSGIO
- Start date
- Tagged users None
It's more than they currently getMelbourne home games at Footscray
There'd genuinely be 100 people there.
telsor
Hall of Famer
Not according to the AFL, and they run the fixture.
The AFL wants the GF at the MCG (for good reason), and one element of that is that all teams need to get to play there every year, usually multiple times.
MCG 'home' teams get to play the GF on their home ground (along with other finals against other Vic teams), but the trade off is that it's the ground with the least home ground advantage through the year.
Glad you agree that Geelong don't get to choose where they play their home games.
telsor
Hall of Famer
To a degree.
If they really wanted to have all their games in Geelong, they would though, so it's pretty clear that whatever the public statements, they don't actually want that.
People advocating spending hundreds of millions of dollars to build a venue that fans would hate and get half the crowds that the same game would at Docklands.....
Compare Melbourne games at the G with what they get at Docklands. Then divide the Docklands number by 4 or 5, and that’s how many they’d get at Footscray - optimistically.
- Feb 21, 2006
- 20,731
- 19,578
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Turtles, NYJets, Celtics, Tottenham
That is ridiculous - I can understand a soft cap on coaches etc but clubs should be able to spend what they want/can on facilities
There is no reason to cap either.
telsor
Hall of Famer
Football dept spending outside the cap is a 'soft' addition to the cap.
2 clubs offer a player 500K each.
Club 'A' has A grade facilities, the best development coaches and medical/fitness/support staff. (and a couple of ex-players who don't seem to do much, but 'somehow' *nudge nudge* get paid very well just to turn up occasionally)
Club 'B' trains at a smaller, 'boutique' facility, has a couple of OK development coaches and bare bones support staff.
Who do you think the player would go to?
If they're serious about the salary cap, they have to have limits on related spending.
- May 3, 2007
- 36,314
- 21,045
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Man City, Valencia, Lazio, Panthers
And this partially explains why there are a few 15-20,000 seat rectangular stadiums in (western) NSW.
The A-league side WS Wanderers originally played games at Parramatta stadium. Then that ground got redevelopment for 1-2 seasons and they played home games at various grounds.
Saying that. Broncos play NRL home games at Suncorp stadium. They don't really have an alternative Venue don't they?
Once Waverley was demolished, there was not alternative grounds but the MCG or Docklands hence north, saints and dogs play lots of rent to play at Docklands don't they?
- May 3, 2007
- 36,314
- 21,045
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Man City, Valencia, Lazio, Panthers
Nope, they would get 10-15,000Melbourne home games at Footscray
There'd genuinely be 100 people there.
telsor
Hall of Famer
Building a new grandstand now are we?
You mean the crowd influence on the game .... yes, I understand you believe its the ground.
telsor
Hall of Famer
That is one of the factors.
AFL & MCC members mean the crowd will always be more evenly distributed and include more neutrals.
But it's a lot more than evenness of crowd. Geelong's 'D' shaded ground would advantage them even if the stadium was empty for example.
lol. Your lot really gets worked up about the shape of our ground. It's an oval (not a circle), which footy should be played on. Sure it's a bit on the skinny side, but it doesn't affect the game nearly as much as your cognitive dissonance might tell you.
telsor
Hall of Famer
Point is, it's a different size and shape to any other ground, which gives an advantage to the team that plays (and trains) on it more regularly.
Adelaide Oval, SCG, Gabba, Docklands, MCG. All different sizes to each other. Not sure what your point is?
telsor
Hall of Famer
Look what I was replying to....
I was saying it's more than just the crowd.
Stop being so defensive about your ground. That it shouldn't be (game) legal to play on is a separate argument.
Last edited:
.... its the ground is it, as in home ground advantage?
Such a misleading concept in the modern game. Was relevant when the Tiges played in a local comp & played where they trained, changed close on 60 years ago ... before decimal currency
Definitive rooted in the past.
telsor
Hall of Famer
.... its the ground is it, as in home ground advantage?
Such a misleading concept in the modern game. Was relevant when the Tiges played in a local comp & played where they trained, changed close on 60 years ago ... before decimal currency
Definitive rooted in the past.
Sorry, I forgot that the only factors that apply are the ones the eagles fans can claim to be unfairly effected by.
- Mar 20, 2009
- 14,393
- 16,743
- AFL Club
- Tasmania
- Other Teams
- Jacksonville
- Banned
- #122
Who gives a s**t
Sorry, I forgot that the only factors that apply are the ones the eagles fans can claim to be unfairly effected by.
Not unusual for the benefits of encumbency to be 'hung on' too & defended mindlessly.
How would the AFL have any say in what trading facility a club can build?
If the Eagles wanted to build a 300 million dollar facility why would the AFL have any say in it?
If the Eagles wanted to build a 300 million dollar facility why would the AFL have any say in it?
telsor
Hall of Famer
Directly, they probably don't.
But they certainly have 'influence' over various parties, (both club and governments) which could probably make/break such things.
As for why...I suppose they'd say it was to do with game balance.
As I posted above...
Similar threads
- Poll
