Opinion Non-Crows AFL 13: Offseason

[BunjiMC]

Can someone explain to me why Wildcard Round is Wildcard Round and not just the first round of Finals?

What's the difference?

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Can someone explain to me why Wildcard Round is Wildcard Round and not just the first round of Finals?

What's the difference?

Finals round 0...

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Teams can now play finals with a losing record.

Nicks:

 

[GreyCrow]

Yeah but if 10th is still playing finals, it kinda is so what’s your point?

10th is a wildcard

 

[tinman]

Yeah but Richmond already got knocked out by the 9th placed side after finishing 5th so we won't be the first.

Ten team finals might mean Essendon could now be a sneaky chance of making finals. OMG. Surely if they do, they can't win one?

 

[daniel_4tw]

I actually don’t hate ‘wild card’ finals. It will keep games more interesting throughout the year before the inevitable dead rubbers begin, teams less likely tank, clubs can get finals experience before truly ready to compete etc.

It works in a lot of US sports because they have divisions, so it’s a way to even it up if your team is in a harder division. And teams can actually win. Dodgers just won the World Series coming through the wild card.

From an AFL perspective it is a way to even up the uneven fixture double ups etc. since we don’t play everyone twice home and away it’s very possible final finishing positions aren’t actually indicative of where each team should be ranked. Wild Card will allow more teams opportunity to level out the finals.

I’ve also been an advocate for more finals. Going from 4 games to 2 games to 2 games to 1 is so anticlimactic.

I just think they’re way too early. They should have gone to this once TAS and team #20 came in. 10 teams in finals out of 18 is way too many.

 

[Bovo]

10th is a wildcard

No it’s no different to 9th. It’s a top 10 finals system. If you finish 11th or below, you can’t play finals. 10th to 1st is still in for finals. The wildcard is a name they used to sell it. It’s a shit name, but marketing needs to do something. In this new system. A team can finish 10th and go on to win the flag if the stars aligned, but it would be highly unlikely

 

[Mostyn]

Are they legally obligated to bankroll them?

They would collapse without AFL support

It would be interesting to know more about what's in the constitution of the AFL Commission. My memory is the Commission is elected by the clubs to serve them, so I wonder what power they have to act against the interests of a member club (even if it's in the best interests of the other clubs).

 

[Mostyn]

In my opinion, the federal government should step in and remind the AFL that they are a tax exempt organisation because they supposedly serve the community. If the AFL wants to keep that status then they should start acting like one. Blackmailing a state government (and by extension its citizens) into paying for a stadium that it does not want is not the behaviour of a community organisation.

Tasmania should have a team in the national competition, and Bellerive Oval is a viable option as a home ground. Building a new stadium with a roof at this stage is not about serving the community, it’s about maximising profits for the AFL. If the AFL wants to behave like a corporation then they can be taxed as one. Otherwise, commit to bringing the Tasmanian team in, stadium or not, and then work on negotiating for a new home ground/redevelopments.

The AFL does a million things that would be perceived as being positive in the community.

There would be no expectation on them risking their own viability by taking on a new obligation - ones that's been proven unviable in multiple independent studies.

If the Tasmanian government believe they can do something transformational that suddenly makes a team viable - like a stadium that would be a destination tourism offering - then they can make that commitment. It's not on the AFL to solve a problem of a small state.

 

[Mostyn]

You could say the same for Ballarat. That ground should never be used for matches played for premiership points.

Agreed. That's a good point against bringing in a Ballarat team.

 

[Mostyn]

Not the point.

It isn’t hard to understand, if the players want more then the broadcasting $$$ have to increase, this is one way to do it.

Same as a twilight Grand Final is coming.

Considering the financial issues being faced by broadcasters, this seems like a smart way to get ahead of potential lower offers for broadcast rights.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

The AFL does a million things that would be perceived as being positive in the community.

There would be no expectation on them risking their own viability by taking on a new obligation - ones that's been proven unviable in multiple independent studies.

If the Tasmanian government believe they can do something transformational that suddenly makes a team viable - like a stadium that would be a destination tourism offering - then they can make that commitment. It's not on the AFL to solve a problem of a small state.

The AFL are basically forcing Tasmanians into unsustainable debt that will put pressure on essential services.

Yes, the could say no, but Tasmanians want a team so that wouldn't be popular.

AFL games have been played in Tasmania for years without any major issues. It's not like most games have been in unplayable conditions.

 

[GreyCrow]

There would be no expectation on them risking their own viability by taking on a new obligation - ones that's been proven unviable in multiple independent studies.

Gold Coast has continuously been proven as a dead zone for sport - yet here we are $300m later

It's not on the AFL to solve a problem of a small state.

They blackmailed the SANFL over the Adelaide Oval redevelopment - ok they got everyone in the room in the Premiers office and banged heads - that seems like solving a problem

 

[Soggy2112]

The AFL does a million things that would be perceived as being positive in the community.

There would be no expectation on them risking their own viability by taking on a new obligation - ones that's been proven unviable in multiple independent studies.

If the Tasmanian government believe they can do something transformational that suddenly makes a team viable - like a stadium that would be a destination tourism offering - then they can make that commitment. It's not on the AFL to solve a problem of a small state.

If Tasmania isn’t a viable option then there shouldn’t be a team, as a stadium won’t change that. In fact, you’re probably asking the people to make a huge investment that you know they’ll never see a return on, which is pretty shady.

The decision on whether they have a team or not should be independent on whether there is a new stadium.

By the way it is on the AFL to solve the problems of football in Tasmania. Remember, organising and growing the game is why they’re tax exempt.

 

[1970crow]

It would be interesting to know more about what's in the constitution of the AFL Commission. My memory is the Commission is elected by the clubs to serve them, so I wonder what power they have to act against the interests of a member club (even if it's in the best interests of the other clubs).

Clubs don’t elect commissioners, the commission does. Clubs have a veto right that requires something like a 2/3s majority. So between the AFL owned and AFL propped up, gonna be hard to achieve that majority. The commission is like our board, self-perpetuating.

 

[Mostyn]

Can anyone sack him or is it one of those roles that you have it until you want or have to step down?

He is ruining the game! He doesn't even speak to the community about what fans players and clubs want it's purely all profit driven.

Clubs want this.

 

[Mostyn]

The AFL are basically forcing Tasmanians into unsustainable debt that will put pressure on essential services.

Yes, the could say no, but Tasmanians want a team so that wouldn't be popular.

AFL games have been played in Tasmania for years without any major issues. It's not like most games have been in unplayable conditions.

The AFL isn't forcing Tasmania into anything.

They want a team, then the onus is on THEM to make the case that it's viable.

It's completely different to paying a viable team like Hawthorn a sponsorship fee to come do a few games a year and attract Hawthorn fans down as tourists to see the game.

 

[1970crow]

Can anyone sack him or is it one of those roles that you have it until you want or have to step down?

He is ruining the game! He doesn't even speak to the community about what fans players and clubs want it's purely all profit driven.

He’ll be there for 3 or 4 years and then Laura will take over.

 

[Mostyn]

NT team you reckon?

Third WA team.

 

[1970crow]

Third WA team.

North Oz side, Cairns, Darwin, Alice and North WA. Thinking Broome too remote, but if they can get to Cairns.

 

[Mostyn]

If Tasmania isn’t a viable option then there shouldn’t be a team, as a stadium won’t change that. In fact, you’re probably asking the people to make a huge investment that you know they’ll never see a return on, which is pretty shady.

The decision on whether they have a team or not should be independent on whether there is a new stadium.

By the way it is on the AFL to solve the problems of football in Tasmania. Remember, organising and growing the game is why they’re tax exempt.

It's not the AFL making a case that the stadium changes things. Peter Gutwein announced it as a the centre of the Tasmanian proposal to the AFL for a team.

The decision on whether there should be a team without a new stadium has already been made. That decision is no. Every independent study has shown a lack of viability.

There is absolutely zero requirement for the AFL to put teams into unviable markets, whether that is Hobart or Townsville.

 

[Barneythecrab]

North Oz side, Cairns, Darwin, Alice and North WA. Thinking Broome too remote, but if they can get to Cairns.

South WA - Jandakot location, repping SW west OZ

 

[Jetwa5h]

North Oz side, Cairns, Darwin, Alice and North WA. Thinking Broome too remote, but if they can get to Cairns.

From a purely selfish point of view id love Cairns, all i get at the moments is watching the 36's wallop the Taipans occasionally lol

 

[1970crow]

Honestly don’t get the hate for it.

Me neither, it's an extra game in an otherwise dead week. And the only negative aspect is that 7th and 8th lose their week off, nobody is going to be lamenting the good old days when 7th and 8th got a pre-finals breather. And you can still make the 6 and anything can happen, so the length and breadth of Triggy's strategy on football still holds. And there's a few fringe benefits like extra TV revenue, extra ground revenue, maybe a few games with extra meaning at the end of the season.

Surely gifting Port and us an extra home game compared compared to other interstate clubs was more an issue than this. And yet everyone in here was in favour of gather round. And why did the AFL add an extra round into the season, yep, you guessed it, money, exposure, money, money and more money.

 

[Vader]

It's not the AFL making a case that the stadium changes things. Peter Gutwein announced it as a the centre of the Tasmanian proposal to the AFL for a team.

The decision on whether there should be a team without a new stadium has already been made. That decision is no. Every independent study has shown a lack of viability.

There is absolutely zero requirement for the AFL to put teams into unviable markets, whether that is Hobart or Townsville.

The AFL have made the construction of the roofed stadium a mandatory condition of the Tasmanian team's admittance. They're essentially blackmailing the Tas Govt into building it.

The TAS Govt know they can't afford to build it, and building it makes no sense whatsoever - it's a bad location, too expensive, completely unnecessary, will rarely be filled to capacity, and will never make a positive financial return. However, if they want a team in the competition (which most Tasmanians do), then they have no choice but to build it - because the AFL are extorting them into doing so.