- Feb 21, 2006
- 20,735
- 19,581
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Turtles, NYJets, Celtics, Tottenham
Have they extended the contract yet? Hopefully to 2099 at minimum.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Until travel is recorded separately to 'away' its pointless.Yeah, that is my point.
It is the crowd that is the biggest factor "ground familiarity and conditions" it is an indoor stadium with exactly the same dimensions.
You reckon an American would expect anything less that 95% crowd support at a home game?
What are MCG home game W % in regular season? Compare that to GF W %....it will fall away, as the home advantage is reduced.
Have they extended the contract yet? Hopefully to 2099 at minimum.
There is no way your 2021 final will be asterisked to identify unearned advantage from home ground rule.
LoL, even your wowser mate posted a link that detailedUntil travel is recorded separately to 'away' its pointless.
Ultimately the bulk of what you describe should not be an AFL problem, it should be a club problem. Outside of finals, clubs host games, not the AFL. So why are the AFL signing stadium deals for club hosted games? They should be completely staying out of it outside of approving grounds for AFL use.The MCG hosts ~ 45 H&A games each year, including the overwhelming majority of the "BLOCKBUSTER" games that they heavily publicise.
Where are they going to play these games if not at the G??
Do the AFL want the Great Southern Stand upgraded to ensure that AFL and club members have up to date facilities for the 45 AFL games per year at the G??
MCC happy to take on the $1b debt to upgrade, in return they want GFs at the G.
It works for the overwhelming majority of AFL stakeholders, except for a couple of the new franchises from out West.
The AFL embarked on a ground rationalisation policy in Melbourne in the 80s and 90s.Ultimately the bulk of what you describe should not be an AFL problem, it should be a club problem. Outside of finals, clubs host games, not the AFL. So why are the AFL signing stadium deals for club hosted games? They should be completely staying out of it outside of approving grounds for AFL use.
The AFL embarked on a ground rationalisation policy in Melbourne in the 80s and 90s.
The AFL pushed Carlton out of Carlton, Hawks and Saints out of Waverley and didn't want to help upgrade the likes of VicPark and Whitten Oval as they wanted "BLOCKBUSTERS" with all of the corporate boxes at Etihad or the G.
The same "stadium deals" dictate the shizen H&A fixture given to Melbourne based teams since Etihad came in....where effectively the AFL removed "home advantage" from Melbourne based clubs.
Ever since the VFL built Waverley in the 70s, the league has dictated certain numbers of games were to be played at league venues.Whatever the reason, that doesn't justify the AFL signing up with stadiums and guaranteeing club games now. It's regional state league thinking.
I don't mind the AFL facilitating agreements, but if the MCG wants 45 games a year then they should be signing clubs up to play those games, not the AFL.
Ever since the VFL built Waverley in the 70s, the league has dictated certain numbers of games were to be played at league venues.
And when Etihad came along in 2000 even MCG tenants like Melbourne and Richmond were forced to play games at Etihad. Collingwood have to play 2 "home" games at Etihad every year....not by choice, but to facilitate a stadium deal.
It was national expansion thinking, just wanting "BLOCKBUSTERS" and the commercial $$ over sporting integrity.
Stadium deals give a large advantage to non-Melbourne teams ever since in H&A, the stats show the over representation in top2 and top4 finishes.
The AFL succeeded in killing off suburban amateur football.I know all of this, and I think it's bullshit that it comtinues. The league buiding Waverley wasn't unlike what happened in WA and SA, with the league having a headquarters venue where the match of the week was played. Like I said, it's regional state league thinking. When the AFL went national, they should have divested itself of all stadiums and put all stadium deals in the hands of the clubs.
Lol, there are a few Melbourne teams that would go broke if they had the same stadium deal as Optus Stadium. Personally, I think the current setup probably disadvantages the big Melbourne clubs, but it's extremely generous to the small Melbourne clubs.
Lol.Id just love to debate you on this subject against three elite athletes from american football, basketball and uk soccer.
Absolutely love watching you trying to justify your bullshit on how playing grand finals at your home ground isnt at advantage and how hard it is travelling 5 times a year is tougher than 10.
Be funking hilarious
Any evidence?MCG Grand Final with a Vic Tennant club would have at least 75% of the crowd against a non Vic Club.
The stats actually show North and Hawks have a greater winning % vs Non Victorian sides in Tasmania than they do in Melbourne. Gone through this before a million timesThe AFL succeeded in killing off suburban amateur football.
It is now a commercially driven beast, where "BLOCKBUSTERS" are given stand alone TV slots to cater for the majority of the national audience.
And no, wasn't talking about the stadium $, the fact that Melbourne teams are forced to sell home games because of sh*te stadium deals is the problem...it gives non-Melbourne teams a leg-up in H&A, the stats bear this out.
If you believe in home advantage it becomes pretty obvious that will be the result when you dilute the advantage of a small subset of teams only.
No flag has an asterisk, it's only sad sooks online that try (and fail) to denigrate these achievements.
LoL, even your wowser mate posted a link that detailed
And will you WA wowsers make your mind up.
- Travel fatigue — there is no real difference in winning percentage based on distance traveled
You also claim that teams like Hawthorn and Melbourne supposedly enjoy an advantage when they sell "home" games and end up travelling?? The old advantageous travelling!!
Do Chelsea enjoy a home advantage at Stamford Bridge against Arsenal?? Clearly the answer is yes, and it is because "home advantage" and the "away disadvantage" is not a result of travel.
When have those 2 not complained about anything?remember the brothers Scott complaining about the passion of the crowds in Perth.
When have those 2 not complained about anything?
I’m quite neutral in this. I live in rural NSW these days and work weekends so getting to H&A games is a once in a blue moon thing, and a grand final almost impossible. But if I did manage to fluke a ticket I’d go to watch my boys no matter where it was played. I thought Perth put on a great spectacle and would have loved to have been there.Geelong have been working for a similar model at Sleepy Hollow - nearly there.
I’m quite neutral in this. I live in rural NSW these days and work weekends so getting to H&A games is a once in a blue moon thing, and a grand final almost impossible. But if I did manage to fluke a ticket I’d go to watch my boys no matter where it was played. I thought Perth put on a great spectacle and would have loved to have been there.
The MCG - as much as I love it - isn’t the sacred cow it once was... but the contract is signed and that’s that. It’s a pure waste of energy wishing otherwise
Any evidence?
Of course not. You never do.
The one where I reckon that was true was the Richmond vs GWS Grand Final. But Richmond support would have massively outweighed GWS where ever the game was played.
The AFL succeeded in killing off suburban amateur football.
It is now a commercially driven beast, where "BLOCKBUSTERS" are given stand alone TV slots to cater for the majority of the national audience.
And no, wasn't talking about the stadium $, the fact that Melbourne teams are forced to sell home games because of sh*te stadium deals is the problem...it gives non-Melbourne teams a leg-up in H&A, the stats bear this out.
If you believe in home advantage it becomes pretty obvious that will be the result when you dilute the advantage of a small subset of teams only.
Lets halve the Allocation to of AFL members to 18,000. From the article Gold AFL Members of competing clubs are given preference. How many AFL members do you reckon Adelaide have compared to Richmond? AFL members are also transferable. So how much easier is it for a Richmond supporter, living in the same city as 99% of AFL members, find someone friend family or otherwise to give them their ticket?