A solution for the MCG 'Home Final' problem

[Sera]

The AFL/MCG contract states that one game must be played at the ground each week during the finals. So to get around that problem, all the AFL have to do is stage 2 other teams to play each other at the ground and call it a 'final'. EG if Collingwood and West Coast are eliminated in the 1st round but Adelaide are required to play at the MCG in the 2nd round as a 'home final', the AFL could play West Coast and Collingwood at the MCG with the winner taking 7th spot and the looser 8th. This would allow the Crows to play in Adelaide. The problem is though that teams will want to lose to get a higher draft pick

 

[piefan2002]

delete the thread, it is bull****

 

[Jars458]

Great idea

16 team finals comp where they have a "plate" and a "trophy" final as well.

Not too sure how the clubs would take it!!

 

[Sera]

Originally posted by piefan2002
delete the thread, it is bull****

An AFL/MCG member I take it...

 

[grayham]

Originally posted by Sera
The AFL/MCG contract states that one game must be played at the ground each week during the finals. So to get around that problem, all the AFL have to do is stage 2 other teams to play each other at the ground and call it a 'final'. EG if Collingwood and West Coast are eliminated in the 1st round but Adelaide are required to play at the MCG in the 2nd round as a 'home final', the AFL could play West Coast and Collingwood at the MCG with the winner taking 7th spot and the looser 8th. This would allow the Crows to play in Adelaide. The problem is though that teams will want to lose to get a higher draft pick

They could play off FOR the higher draft pick !

Smart idea Sera. Hopefully the new AFL CEO has this sort of vision.

 

[DaveW]

Full marks for thinking outside the square. I wonder if it would actually work?

Last year the first two teams eliminated were North Melbourne and West Coast, that could have been the MCG final to allow Adelaide v Melbourne to be played at Football Park.

I can't see the teams and players going for it however. Like you say, losing means a better draft pick. Plus the players want to begin pre-season holiday. And the clubs want them back ASAP to start pre-season training. (Two months from last match I think it is.)

 

[piefan2002]

Once you are out of the finals, you are out of the finals.

The contracts state,
1 Final must be played at the MCG every week, and 1 Final must be played at Telstra Dome in the first week.

I don't agree with the rules, however you cannot have games once you are eliminated from the finals.

 

[grayham]

Originally posted by DaveW
Full marks for thinking outside the square. I wonder if it would actually work?

Last year the first two teams eliminated were North Melbourne and West Coast, that could have been the MCG final to allow Adelaide v Melbourne to be played at Football Park.

I can't see the teams and players going for it however. Like you say, losing means a better draft pick. Plus the players want to begin pre-season holiday. And the clubs want them back ASAP to start pre-season training. (Two months from last match I think it is.)

Well its only one extra game for the loosers of the week previous. So not much of an extra demand.

The incentive to play could be that the winner gets the higher pick (as I already said).

Its still a final, as WC final for 3rd/4th is still officially a final.

And, ideally no one will go to it, and the teams wont take it seriously.......and therefore the sooner the MCG comes to the renegotiating table.

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by piefan2002
Once you are out of the finals, you are out of the finals.

The contracts state,
1 Final must be played at the MCG every week, and 1 Final must be played at Telstra Dome in the first week.

I don't agree with the rules, however you cannot have games once you are eliminated from the finals.

Have a sook. The interpretation of "final" is very subjective. Second of all, get your facts straight. Neither of those are stated in the contract. The first one has been re-worked - as I understand its one final per week at the MCG, on average, in the first two weeks of the finals over three years. (The Adelaide-Melbourne match could have been in Adelaide but the AFL didn't want to be 'owing' the MCG matches...). Although it remains true that a preliminary and the grand final must be played at the MCG each and every year. And the Docklands final is dependant upon two Melbourne teams earning first week finals.

 

[Ausgard]

Originally posted by piefan2002
Once you are out of the finals, you are out of the finals.

The contracts state,
1 Final must be played at the MCG every week, and 1 Final must be played at Telstra Dome in the first week.

I don't agree with the rules, however you cannot have games once you are eliminated from the finals.

I think you miss the point

What defines a final ?

Whatever the AFL calls a final

so if an MCG final looks like its going to be Adelaide vs West Coast (or whatever) then why not have 15th vs 16th to see who gets the number one draft pick

or have the ATSIC match vs whoever and call that a "final"

just always play it at the same time as the Preliminary final and then if it looks like the MCG ruling will stuff up a home ground advantage then just play the ATSIC match at the MCG and if not then play it in the NT or something

now OBVIOUSLY is this all B.S. but at least its amusing B.S. If they MCG are being painful in there wishes then the AFL can be just as painful

or EVEN better

how about the Reserves / VFL or the 18's "Final" at the same time

heh heh heh

 

[Tio_Ray]

didn't the AFL negotiate with the MCG to be able to start building up a bank of extra games at the MCG so that when we do have alot of interstate teams in the finals that they can play at home. Its meant to start this year isn't it?

 

[hotpie]

Originally posted by DaveW
Have a sook. The interpretation of "final" is very subjective.

No its not.

If you are still in the finals you are a chance of winning the competition. Pretty clearcut.

Nobody is interested in seeing a 7th vs 8th dead rubber/practice match and the MCC (who hold the upper hand ie the contract) will never agree to such a stupid idea.

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by hotpie
No its not.

If you are still in the finals you are a chance of winning the competition. Pretty clearcut.

Nobody is interested in seeing a 7th vs 8th dead rubber/practice match and the MCC (who hold the upper hand ie the contract) will never agree to such a stupid idea.

It's not clearcut. Show me where it says you have to be in with a chance of winning the competition?

And Stiff $hit. If the MCG is undeserving of staging a final then they should consider themselves lucky to even get that.

 

[hotpie]

Originally posted by DaveW
It's not clearcut. Show me where it says you have to be in with a chance of winning the competition?

And Stiff $hit. If the MCG is undeserving of staging a final then they should consider themselves lucky to even get that.

I said nothing about deserving. I feel for you and your predicament. But a contract is a contract and the MCC would have a field day if this theory ever came to court.

Would a reasonable man agree that a dead rubber scheduled by the AFL would constitute a "final"?

No.

 

[Watcher]

Originally posted by DaveW
It's not clearcut. Show me where it says you have to be in with a chance of winning the competition?

And Stiff $hit. If the MCG is undeserving of staging a final then they should consider themselves lucky to even get that.

Is that like Winning TATTS with out having A TATTS ticket???

 

[ozzult]

Originally posted by hotpie
I said nothing about deserving. I feel for you and your predicament. But a contract is a contract and the MCC would have a field day if this theory ever came to court.

Would a reasonable man agree that a dead rubber scheduled by the AFL would constitute a "final"?

No.

It isn't a dead rubber, it would be deciding between 7th and 8th spots. Just like they have the 3rd place playoff in the World Cup.

 

[manmountain]

Whether the contract actually states what defines a final or not, the MCC would take the AFL to court, and win, because it is quite clearly not in the spirit of what the contract intended.

Secondly, most clubs would tell the AFL to "get f***ed" if they were ordered to front up for a nothing game after being eliminated form the finals.

A better solution would be for the AFL to negotiate some sort of deal with the MCC, or even threaten them, "ie. either you come to the party and be reasonable on this, or we'll make sure that the one final you do get each round is the lowest drawing match we can find, and we'll do f*** all to promote it".

 

[CharlieG]

Originally posted by Tio_Ray
didn't the AFL negotiate with the MCG to be able to start building up a bank of extra games at the MCG so that when we do have alot of interstate teams in the finals that they can play at home. Its meant to start this year isn't it?

Only for the first two weeks of the finals.

They wouldn't budge on the preliminary.

 

[hotpie]

Originally posted by ozzult
It isn't a dead rubber, it would be deciding between 7th and 8th spots. Just like they have the 3rd place playoff in the World Cup.

Try that crap argument in a court of law. You would be laughed out.

 

[grayham]

Originally posted by manmountain
Whether the contract actually states what defines a final or not, the MCC would take the AFL to court, and win, because it is quite clearly not in the spirit of what the contract intended.

Secondly, most clubs would tell the AFL to "get f***ed" if they were ordered to front up for a nothing game after being eliminated form the finals.

At the present moment, the AFL is flushed with cash, and the MCG is in serious debt to build its new stand.
Its the perfect time to push them.

Whether it would stand up in court is really how the contract is written. But basically the current situation has to change, and this would be a good first step in dismantling it. If the MCG takes it to court and the AFL looses, then a new contract will be written anyway.

As for the clubs. Tell them they'll miss out on the divi, and they'll soon play. I think all interstate clubs would agree in an instant, if it mean real home finals.

 

[ClintEastwood]

The AFL are making enough bloody profit now (esp. with the TV rights deal). They should just pay out the contract to a negotiated figure (average MCG finals gate takings for the last N years), and play the bloody final whereever it should be played.

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by hotpie
Try that crap argument in a court of law. You would be laughed out.

Don't be too sure

Two letters for you to define how courts can work in zany ways

O J

 

[grayham]

Originally posted by hotpie
Try that crap argument in a court of law. You would be laughed out.

How the AFL organises its finals series is up to the AFL. The old 4v5 was a waste of a final, but still counted as a final.

 

[Dean3]

Pretty sure that the agreement states "Preliminary Final" for the third week at least.

Hard to convince anyone that a play-off between 5th & 6th is a "Preliminary" Final.

 

[hotpie]

Originally posted by Jars458
Don't be too sure

Two letters for you to define how courts can work in zany ways

O J

Wrong country, pal.

Our courts may be a little inconsistent but they are not completely stupid. In any case that was a criminal case about what happened - this would be a civil case where the judgement is about what is logical.