-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
A solution for the MCG 'Home Final' problem
- Thread starter Sera
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Apr 20, 2001
- 28,246
- 11,267
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Adelaide Utd,Liverpool, WWT Eagles.
i know
was mostly taking the p iss
No way the idea would ever work, but it would be good to blow wind up the MCC (as opposed to the current stae of the MCG) at least initially.
- Banned
- #28
Our current preliminary's are actually semi finals by their correct name. The "Preliminary" name came about when there was only one final the week before the GF.
5th v 6th "Preliminary" final is the preliminary before the off-season!
The winner/loser could still progress to preliminary/be eliminated but this was unlikely. As it was it still had some meaning in that the winner - MCG contract permitting - got home ground advantage in the second week, and the loser would be playing away in the second week. (Although try explaining this to some Geelong fans.
)Log in to remove this Banner Ad
- Thread starter
- #30
I don't know why the pie fans are complaining because if that scenario happened they would get another chance to see their side play. Aren't all the pie fans the ones that want 30 games a year?
I don't think any of us are lawyers and/or know the exact content of the contract so its difficult to tell whether they could get away with it legally. The Dockers will play finals before the MCC renegotiate their contract with the AFL.
I don't think any of us are lawyers and/or know the exact content of the contract so its difficult to tell whether they could get away with it legally. The Dockers will play finals before the MCC renegotiate their contract with the AFL.
- Thread starter
- #33
It's food for thought, but obviously some people prefer not to think about it. Blissfully ignorant.
No one's complaining, merely pointing out that from the standpoint of honouring an existing contract, this "contrived" final would not be sufficient (probably) if the MCC wanted to take legal action.
With regards to the courts, it pays to remember that we have a legal system, not a justice system.
- Thread starter
- #35
Firstly, it's not a contrived 'final'. It's another way to properly determine the final standings. Secondly, you're a lawyer are you?
Port01
Norm Smith Medallist
Veteran
Port Adelaide - Riley Bonner Player Sponsor 2016
Port Adelaide - Brendon Ah Chee Player Sponsor 2014
Port Adelaide - Jarrad Redden Player Sponsor 2014
Port Adelaide - Matthew Broadbent Player Sponsor 2013
Port Adelaide - Captains Club 2012 Sponsor
Port Adelaide - John Butcher 2012 Player Sponsor
Its amazing how Ed and McMahon aren't constantly shoving this inequity down our throats to get it fixed. After all the only thing they want is a fair chance for everybody.
1. Its not a final at all, contrived or otherwise. its an exhibition game.
2 so what.
3. you don't need to be a lawyer to work out the logic of this argument. first year legal studies will suffice (the "reasonable man"rule)
- Thread starter
- #38
We could do this until the cows come home...
No it's not, if it had no bearing on the season it would be an exhibition game.
Insightful.
Been to law school?
No it's not, if it had no bearing on the season it would be an exhibition game.
Insightful.
Been to law school?
- Apr 20, 2001
- 28,246
- 11,267
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Adelaide Utd,Liverpool, WWT Eagles.
Don't be daft
its like me having a contract with you to sell you two cows
But intstead I give you two goldfish
when you complain I say
"I call them cows"
As a famous case once said "If it quacks like a duck - it is a duck"
Anyway I am sure the contract is quite specific as to what constitutes a final.
- Thread starter
- #41
I'm pretty sure the AFL doesn't make the exact nature of these contracts available for public knowledge. So its all just guesswork, regardless of what you think a final is.
- Thread starter
- #42
It determines who finishes 7th and who finishes 8th.
The 'reasonable man' rule is to do with the law of torts: i.e. accountablility for one's actions, interpreting warnings etc., not to do with contracts.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Apr 20, 2001
- 28,246
- 11,267
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Adelaide Utd,Liverpool, WWT Eagles.
I am 100% confident given the huge sums of money involved.
And yes, I have been to law school.
Aren't you an MCC member hotpie? Surely then your interest is in the status quo, so of course you wouldn't see it that way. As many have said, the soccer WC is a big precedent for finals that don't result in proceeding onward.
In fact I believe there are plenty of competitions around the world where teams play off for positions as their last match, and given the structure of the AFL finals, it could be easily justified as a method of calculating who finishes higher out of the two teams eliminated each week.
Institute these "finals" and say the MCG only gets those finals in week 2 along with a maximum of 1 preliminary final until they renegotiate the rest of the contract fairly. Put this in conjunction with the elimination of AFL membership (ie AFL members become standard club members), and the only people vaguely inconvenienced are members of a cricket club.
No, this has got nothing to do with it. However, there are several rules when it comes to interpreting contracts, and unfortunately I think they would disallow such a 'final' to be played.
Surely the lawyers of the MCC were specific enough to prevent something like this occurring.
- Thread starter
- #50
*Yawns*
Similar threads
- Poll
