Mega Thread VICBias - Genuine Discussion Part 2

[Coolangatta]

Carringbush2010 how do you feel about Canberra as an expansion club?

Are they disloyal if they abandon the clubs they follow for them or do you feel it’s different because Canberra doesn’t have its own club to follow?

Are they disloyal in the Northern Territory if they jump ship?

Does your mentality just apply to cities and regions who already have a team?

Roylion. Good. So go and tell people who are against expansion that. I don’t think flags are the be all and end all, too.

Honestly, the solution to this is expansion. The only and I mean only good argument against expansion is if we have enough talent or not. I say we do for 20 clubs.

For more than that? I’m not sure. I don’t see many viable options beyond Canberra at the moment, either. I certainly think WA3 is but sure, you could technically argue it’s not essential.

 

[JackOutback]

Like it or lump it this competition IS an expanded vfl.

That’s the whole point of this thread. We don’t have to like it lump it. We are as much a part of this competition as any Victorian club and we can fight for changes to improve it. One day, Victorian fans may even realise it’s not their league anymore.

 

[Coolangatta]

It's probably a hard perspective to relate to for Non-Vics as you didn't see it up close with these teams. North, Dogs, Saints fans just aren't going to jump to a different local team as they've been the enemy - it's not like jumping aboard a new team that's arrived in the comp like what occured for 7 of the 8 Non Vic teams - heaps of those fans will simply be gutted and lost to the game - you won't be growing the game - you'll be shrinking it.

Well, lucky for them they can decide their own fate. I just don’t want to see anyone turn around and stomp their feet about expansion because it makes it harder to win a flag.

So what? You ever seen the VFL premiership tally in 1986? It was worse back then when it was just 12 teams.

Ironically, with 18 teams, we have better measures in place to give struggling clubs the best opportunity to win a flag.

Why would adding a 20th club and perhaps more in the future change that?

 

[sr36]

That’s the whole point of this thread. We don’t have to like it lump it. We are as much a part of this competition as any Victorian club and we can fight for changes to improve it. One day, Victorian fans may even realise it’s not their league anymore.

And WA fans will realise that it's a club based comp rather than a state based one.

 

[Coolangatta]

And WA fans will realise that it's a club based comp rather than a state based one.

And Vic fans will realise you can adopt second and third teams and see more live footy and still be loyal to your original club.

You know there are Swans fans who go to Giants games, right? It’s not making any difference for the GWS fan base yet, but it is for their kids who they take with them.

Did the Dockers just grow out of thin air did they? I still want to know if Carringbush2010 thinks Dockers fans are nothing but disloyal Eagles fans.

 

[JackOutback]

And WA fans will realise that it's a club based comp rather than a state based one.

Yes, where some clubs are more disadvantaged than others based on location.

 

[Roylion]

Roylion. Good. So go and tell people who are against expansion that. I don’t think flags are the be all and end all, too.

I’m all in favour of expansion rather than contraction.

 

[sr36]

Yes, where some clubs are more disadvantaged than others based on location.

Yeah I know.

Heaps more footy fans per club in WA than anywhere else
Heaps more football players per club in WA than anywhere else
About nine times the number of Aboriginals with NGA matching access per club in WA

Imagine what the Geelong administration would do with those advantages if they were running one of the WA teams.

But I know, you WA fans are only interested in travel as that's your geographical disadvantage - ignore the geographical advantages.

 

[Coolangatta]

I’m all in favour of expansion rather than contraction.

Me too, but I feel like a lot of people want to stop it at 20 clubs.

I think Canberra would be the ideal choice for team 20.

I also think it’d be silly not to look at a second club in Brisbane in 25-30 years time.

But Carringbush2010 wouldn’t like that because they aren’t true Lions supporters if they jump ship.

Perhaps the Sunshine Coast, then, but they need a stadium and a team to test out games there, first.

Alternately, you can expand with actual traditional clubs that still have followings.

If you supported the Falcons in the WAFL before the Eagles even existed, I don’t think it makes you a traitor if you decided to adopt the Falcons as your first team if they joined the AFL. Just as an example.

So maybe a second Brisbane club would be better off being someone like the Aspley Hornets, an actual club with supporters. Start small and the next generations might build it up.

 

[sr36]

Alternately, you can expand with actual traditional clubs that still have followings.

If you supported the Falcons in the WAFL before the Eagles even existed, I don’t think it makes you a traitor if you decided to adopt the Falcons as your first team if they joined the AFL. Just as an example.

The problem with expanding with traditional clubs is their growth potential is small. It's worked with Port - but a third of Adelaide barracked for them when they were just a SANFL team. However, they're still pretty small for an AFL club and have little potential for growth, as non-Port fans in Adelaide have hated them for generations. Norwood would be a tiny AFL club if they were added now.

I don't know about the WA market.

 

[Coolangatta]

The problem with expanding with traditional clubs is their growth potential is small. It's worked with Port - but a third of Adelaide barracked for them when they were just a SANFL team. However, they're still pretty small for an AFL club and have little potential for growth, as non-Port fans in Adelaide have hated them for generations. Norwood would be a tiny AFL club if they were added now.

I don't know about the WA market.

Yes, that’s it, isn’t it, the people who hate that club won’t follow them which limits growth potential. As I’ve said before, it’s why we didn’t get Southport.

A 3rd WA club would likely be a new franchise, given the AFL’s history.

I think the South West Sharks would be a banger.

How I would expand in the next 30 years:

20. Canberra
21. Brisbane 2 or Sunshine Coast
22. South West WA

Beyond that, too early to say, but I’d certainly be looking at the Northern Territory and North Queensland in 50~ years.

I also think Auckland and Newcastle have potential but are big risks. Need to be tested out 2-4 games with AFL standard stadiums etc first. Same thing with the Sunny Coast, really.

Don’t know about Wollongong or Central Coast. Hard to see too much ground being made up there.

I don’t even think they have full time NRL teams so that’s probably way too ambitious, I guess.

I think there’s something to Perth, Sydney, Adelaide and Brisbane being strong two team cities. Good long term goal IMO.

In any case, I have much more appetite for expansion than most. But that’s just me.

Whoever is the 20th club, I hope that’s not the end of it because that’s a lot of potential left on the table IMO.

 

[doppleganger]

The MCG tenants who don't play much at Marvel are Hawthorn, Collingwood, Richmond and Melbourne. The latter two have largely been joke organisations in the AFL era. I think you're the only person in Australia who thinks that's because they play at the MCG a lot.

Back when Hawks were winning their flags in 13-15, they played 27 H&A games outside of Victoria and only 30 at the G.

Isn't the myth that travel is hard and a disadvantage? Hawks travelling 9 times per year compared to SA teams with 10, and Pies/Ess/Blues just 5.

Richmond went from playing 17 H&A games at the G in 1999, to just 9-11 for most of the 2000s. Even when the Hawks were winning flags in 13-15, Richmond were still playing home games against Gold Coast in QLD!

The ridiculous notion is that teams like Melbourne, Richmond, Carlton are advantaged by playing neutral BLOCKBUSTERs instead of playing games where the enjoy a home ground advantage over their opponent.

When those 4 teams are good, even with Collingwood's grand final chokes, I'd say their finals win/loss rate stacks up pretty well.

When they are good...

Richmond were 6-1 in finals at the G and 4-1 in finals away from the G in their "good patch" from 17-20. But outside their good patch, they had 7 bottom 4 finishes and only 1 other finals win for the century.

Melbourne were 0-4 in finals at the G and 3-0 in finals away from the G in their good patch from 21-23. Outside their good patch, the Dees have never had another top 4 finish and have also had 7 bottom 4 finishes.

Richmond and Hawthorn with a few quick flags in succession. Collingwood should have done the same and maybe this year finally get two flags close together.

That really is what all the sooking is based on.

But it was Richmond finally coming good and having monster wins against GWS (after going and beating Brisbane in Brisbane) and winning a flag away in COVID...they were just a stronger team.

Hawthorn were also the stronger team, and beat WC despite travelling more than them too.

Finals failures relative to H&A position are more common for sides that don't host finals at their home ground (but "host" MCG teams at their home ground), or play GFs at the G as a non Vic side.

Are you sure?

Check the SA teams record. The two SA teams have combined for 11 top 2 H&A finishes...but have lost home finals against "lower ranked" teams in 12 seasons.

01,02,03,05,06,08,12,17,20,21,23 and 24

Almost as if they aren't actually disadvantaged during H&A, but instead are advantaged and are shown up come finals??

It is lucky Collingwood have blown so many home grand finals, or else it would be a complete flag domination by the 4 MCG teams this century.

Yeah, you can deal in what ifs and beliefs.

I will stick to facts, teams who have retained a home ground advantage perform best in H&A - should be obvious.

And they carry this through into more GF appearances and flags than any other group of teams.

 

[VicBased]

So recently we've got concession that Bunbury would be a good 3rd wa club to compete in the expanded vfl from wa bf posters in here.

This is the impression I get from the wa footy fan posters in here, the thought is that Bunbury folk would happily get on the bandwagon.

So if they're already wc or freo happens, do they drop wc and freo or adopt this new club as a 2nd or 1st club? So 85k footy folk would adopt this new club.

Doesn't say a lot for fan loyatly of the current afl clubs does it.

100% guarantee that the complaining about how vic centric the expanded vfl is would continue.

There's a local league here that would be a behemoth if every wa footy fan adopted it and abandoned the expanded vfl the complain about all the time.

Pretty much sums it up.

So I'd like the wa posters in here, that are keen on this new club and not much for club loyalty to explain why they're so keen to follow a vic centric comp yet perpetually complain that it's vic centric.

For myself living where I do, I support WC fully but have a second team i support in the state I live in.
But I support ALL Interstate teams when they are playing a Vic team. Pretty simple method really.

 

[sr36]

For myself living where I do, I support WC fully but have a second team i support in the state I live in.
But I support ALL Interstate teams when they are playing a Vic team. Pretty simple method really.

Pies fans generally don't care about the state. We barrack for our team, against Carlton and various other local rivals depending on personal hatred, and in other games for outcomes that will help our team or for the underdog.

 

[Carringbush2010]

My point is, do you think Fremantle supporters are a pack of disloyal campaigners because they didn’t stick with West Coast?

Well they jumped ship so disloyal, not necessarily campaigners, but certainly not loyal.

 

[Carringbush2010]

@Carringbush2010 how do you feel about Canberra as an expansion club?

Are they disloyal if they abandon the clubs they follow for them or do you feel it’s different because Canberra doesn’t have its own club to follow?

How can they be disloyal if they don't have a club to follow in the first place? They're not abandoning a current club.

 

[Carringbush2010]

That’s the whole point of this thread. We don’t have to like it lump it. We are as much a part of this competition as any Victorian club and we can fight for changes to improve it. One day, Victorian fans may even realise it’s not their league anymore.

Yes you do, as have been explained ad nauseum, this competition IS an expanded vfl rebranded.

Now you can accept it or not.

Vic has more population than all other footy states and territories combined, that is why this competition IS vic centric.

You all don't like it and complain about it, ok, knock yourselves out.

The beauty is you all have choice, if you all abandoned the afl and followed the wafl, then the wafl is huge again.

• Attracts the best local footy talent and not just players
• No more vic centric comp to get your knickers in a twist about
• Broadcasters pay $ to broadcast
• Organically, local grounds get stadium upgrades coz public interest and $

Or you can continue to wallow in vic centric misery and complain about the status quo, all up to all of you, take your pick.

 

[randyzany]

For myself living where I do, I support WC fully but have a second team i support in the state I live in.
But I support ALL Interstate teams when they are playing a Vic team. Pretty simple method really.

For as much as I have a strong aversion against the Weagles for robbing Geelong in the 90s of flags by unfairly being allowed to field state sides, I was actually barracking for them against Collingwood and would do so against Essendon and probably Carlton as well (can't let them get too far ahead in the flag count).

Against Hawthorn is a tough one, I'd get just behind the Weagles to stop them from adding more flags compared to the 4 that the Weagles have. Richmond and Weagles I probably not just watch the granny at all, just a lose - lose outcome all round.

I guess it depends on the Melbourne teams as I would definitely support St Kilda, Dogs and Dees against the Weagles in a Grand Final. North just barely because of the Carey bad memories from the 90s still linger on.

 

[Carringbush2010]

If you supported the Falcons in the WAFL before the Eagles even existed, I don’t think it makes you a traitor if you decided to adopt the Falcons as your first team if they joined the AFL. Just as an example.

Of course not, I'd argue most Falcon fans have always been and always will be Falcon fans.

The thing is those same Falcon fans have adopted a brand new club to compete in an expanded vfl, and have complained about the comp being vic centric since the expansion.

Ok if you wanna follow a club in a vic centric competition then don't complain about, or do, couldn't care less.

Just realize that the comp IS vic centric, the whole footy landscape is vic centric, is not a conspiracy, it is organically coz the vic market is catered to more, coz it's bigger.

You don't have to like or even accept it, or do accept it,or you could all vote with your feet and remotes.

 

[sr36]

For as much as I have a strong aversion against the Weagles for robbing Geelong in the 90s of flags by unfairly being allowed to field state sides, I was actually barracking for them against Collingwood and would do so against Essendon and probably Carlton as well (can't let them get too far ahead in the flag count). I guess it depends on the Melbourne teams as I would definitely support St Kilda, Dogs and Dees against the Weagles in a Grand Final. North just barely because of the Carey bad memories from the 90s still linger on. Against Hawthorn is also another tough one, I'd get just behind the Weagles to stop them from adding more flags compared to the 4 that the Weagles have. Richmond and Weagles I probably not just watch the granny at all, just a lose- lose outcome all around.

If looking at flag counts, a WCE flag would give them bragging rights over you - they'd move into outright 2nd of the AFL era, pushing you back into equal 3rd.

Bloody Eagles fans - equal 2nd in flags since their inception - and the only team to rise to the top 3 totally different times during this period - and all they do is whinge about how disadvantaged they are. It's just ridiculous.

 

[Carringbush2010]

For myself living where I do, I support WC fully but have a second team i support in the state I live in.
But I support ALL Interstate teams when they are playing a Vic team. Pretty simple method really.

This is a club competition, not State of Origin.

If you wanna barrack for a team that is non vic because it opposes vic, then that sounds like an inferiority complex, you should be ringing dill and pushing hard for SOO.

I'm different, if wc play the blose, I'm barracking hard for wc, couldn't care less for State of Origin. The blose are the enemy not non vic.

 

[randyzany]

If looking at flag counts, a WCE flag would give them bragging rights over you - they'd move into outright 2nd of the AFL era, pushing you back into equal 3rd.

Bloody Eagles fans - equal 2nd in flags since their inception - and the only team to rise to the top 3 totally different times during this period - and all they do is whinge about how disadvantaged they are. It's just ridiculous.

People can look it at that way, I don't as when the modern period supposedly began is nebulous and contentious. I share a similar view with Colin Carter than flags won in previous competitions that preceded the VFL but were by default the best in the country should be also be celebrated so my point of view 17 > 4. Others can disagree, it doesn't bother me.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Nah, we won’t watch the WAFL, just like Fitzroy fans don’t watch the VAFA! Well, most of them. Ya know, disloyal and all that.

Oh, and also there’s a tiny little problem that most people under 50 don’t give a flying **** about the WAFL as they never grew up watching it and following a local club.

Ok then continue your misery about the expanded vfl and footy in general being vic centric, or just shut up about it, or don't, couldn't care less. Or you could all collectively abandon it.

Nah, they’re not a destination club in Melbourne and don’t draw good crowds. A perennial battler. Canberra is where it’s at, but like I said, they can stay irrelevant if they want.

Who cares? Their survival is ensured coz funds distribution from tv rights.

Now, anyone can criticize that, go ahead criticize, it ain't changing, the expanded vfl wants to ensure their survival.

Throw your toys as much as you want, or just snub it. You all have choice.

 

[sr36]

People can look it at that way, I don't as when the modern period supposedly began is nebulous and contentious. I share a similar view with Colin Carter than flags won in previous competitions that preceded the VFL but were by default the best in the country should be also be celebrated so my point of view 17 > 4. Others can disagree, it doesn't bother me.

The counter point isn't so much which flags are valid or not - it's simply that if WCE have won more flags since they arrived in the comp - they've outperformed you on that measure. Since their inception, they've been more or as successful as anyone other than the Hawks.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I still want to know if @Carringbush2010 thinks Dockers fans are nothing but disloyal Eagles fans.

Yep.