A solution for the MCG 'Home Final' problem

[Sera]

Originally posted by Guey_34
Surely the lawyers of the MCC were specific enough to prevent something like this occurring.

Thats kind of the whole point of this thread. No one knows if they did and until we know for sure, there is an outside chance that they didn't cover themselves. And if they didn't, lets go for it I mean you wouldn't think the AFL would be stupid enough to get themselves into this situation in the first place, so if they can make a blunder, its possible the MCC has made a blunder too... It's time the AFL grew some balls and take it up to them anyway they can.

 

[knuckles]

Originally posted by hotpie
so the "unreasonable man" rule applies for contracts?

I'm thinking the law of unconscionability in relation to the AFL's grasp of any contract.

I can't imagine any player not wanting to play their GF on the 'G.

Care factor 0 other finals.

 

[piefan2002]

Why would you want to come 7th when you get a higher draft pick if you finish 8th.

 

[hotpie]

Originally posted by Guey_34
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.

Agreed

If the contract was not that specific, the courts would have to determine exactly what constituted a final, using good old fashioned common sense. They would look at over 100 years of history and determine that

(a) never before has ther been a "final" between 7th and 8th with both sides being eliminated
(b) the underlying reason (and only reason) for this "final" being played is so that breach of contract can be attempted.

 

[dave_27]

Originally posted by piefan2002
Why would you want to come 7th when you get a higher draft pick if you finish 8th.

Exactly.

Surely people cant keep debating in favour of this proposal on this thread after reading this.

 

[Sera]

Originally posted by hotpie
If the contract was not that specific...

Well it could be worded in such a fashion that said a final was a game which 'determined a position on the ladder after the regular season had finished'. Then I don't think that would be in the MCCs favour. But we don't know, so just keep trolling me buddy.

 

[hotpie]

Originally posted by Sera
Well it could be worded in such a fashion that said a final was a game which 'determined a position on the ladder after the regular season had finished'.

Aww gee.....

If it was worded like that, you might be right......

Well done you won the argument.... congratulations....

 

[Sera]

Originally posted by hotpie
Aww gee.....

If it was worded like that, you might be right......

Well done you won the argument.... congratulations....

Don't worry, I'm sure your MCC membership isn't under threat from having to attend one of these 'finals'.

 

[Mr Q]

Originally posted by hotpie
(b) the underlying reason (and only reason) for this "final" being played is so that breach of contract can be attempted.

Of course, that has the counter argument "the underlying reason (and only reason) for this 'final' being played is so that breach of contract can be avoided" as other AFL rules will not permit sufficient finals to be played in Melbourne that week any other way.

 

[DaveW]

I'm sure the old VFL had a round robin finals format once which resulted in matches played where neither team could progress.

 

[Sera]

Originally posted by DaveW
I'm sure the old VFL had a round robin finals format once which resulted in matches played where neither team could progress.

Well, a court of law would just have to have a good, long hard look at that

 

[hotpie]

Originally posted by Sera
Don't worry, I'm sure your MCC membership isn't under threat from having to attend one of these 'finals'.

Probably not.

My team would never finish as low as 7th or eighth... perish the thought!

 

[Goldenblue]

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

It has merit. I think full marks to the guy who actually thinks laterally. Wayne Jackson is not capable of this type of thinking.

 

[hotpie]

Why don't we just redefine the Crows as a "Melbourne team"
Or call the MCG for the purposes of the PF game as an "Adelaide ground". Both these will, by definition, give the Crows a home final.

Is just as illogical as defining an irrelevant 7th vs 8th game as a "final"

The only way to get out of this contarct (if there is any way at all) is for tha AFL to buy its way out. Making up silly definitions will not cut the mustard.

 

[Jars458]

Re: Re: A solution for the MCG 'Home Final' problem

Originally posted by Goldenblue
It has merit. I think full marks to the guy who actually thinks laterally. Wayne Jackson is not capable of this type of thinking.

Because its a load of rubbish and defies commerical reality.

People who think this might work obviously belive the lawyers at the MCC are complete morons.

Move on.

 

[Squeak]

I like the way you think Sera, however...

No-one'd go.

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by hotpie
Why don't we just redefine the Crows as a "Melbourne team"
Or call the MCG for the purposes of the PF game as an "Adelaide ground". Both these will, by definition, give the Crows a home final.

By assigning Adelaide a home final at the MCG last year, that's effectively what happened. We weren't to happy about it either. Idiot.

 

[hotpie]

Originally posted by DaveW
By assigning Adelaide a home final at the MCG last year, that's effectively what happened. We weren't to happy about it either. Idiot.

Thats the contract that you are stuck with.

Rewriting the dictionary won't change that.

 

[Mr Q]

Originally posted by Squeak
I like the way you think Sera, however...

No-one'd go.

Somehow I think that's the point. Give the MCC their finals, noone turns up, they lose money, they come to the table about the overall contract. MCC comes to the table and the "finals" quietly disappear off the map....

Jars, you're almost certainly right, but there was at least one lot of morons involved (them at the AFL) when this contract was signed. You never know, there might have been two

Originally posted by hotpie
Why don't we just redefine the Crows as a "Melbourne team"
Or call the MCG for the purposes of the PF game as an "Adelaide ground". Both these will, by definition, give the Crows a home final.

Is just as illogical as defining an irrelevant 7th vs 8th game as a "final"

Not really, as 3rd v 4th is a final in other sporting competitions (again reference Soccer World Cup) so why not 7th v 8th (you'd probably have to have 3v4 and 5v6 as well). However, the Crows are an Adelaide team, and the MCG is a Melbourne ground. Both of those are completely indisputable fact.

 

[Port01]

The AFL should sign a contract to give Brisbane salary cap concessions until 2032.

Would stop the whining about it obviously, because once its a contract its unbreakable and there is no point arguing about it, at least that is what we are led to believe.

 

[Goldenblue]

Re: Re: Re: A solution for the MCG 'Home Final' problem

Originally posted by Jars458
Because its a load of rubbish and defies commerical reality.

People who think this might work obviously belive the lawyers at the MCC are complete morons.

Move on.

I agree with what you say Jars, I was only thinking it was a good idea and it takes someone like Sera who does think laterally.

However, with the MCG contract all bound up for the next decade or so, it would never be a reality.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by hotpie
Thats the contract that you are stuck with.

Rewriting the dictionary won't change that.

Agreed in a sense, so therefore ...

either the contract has to be changed, or

this fudge of re-defining exactly what a final was could be tried, or

a similar work-around has to be found, or

the status quo could be kept thereby killing off any remaining hope of rescuing public opinion that the AFL was a truly National competition - and eventually effectively killing the game off entirely.

I'm sure as an AFL member hotpie you would want that last option ... and end up with no games of AFL footy at the MCG at all, finals or otherwise.

Smart move - NOT!!!!!!

 

[Summer]

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

Spoken like a true Collingwood supporter.

 

[Squeak]

Originally posted by Mr Q




Not really, as 3rd v 4th is a final in other sporting competitions (again reference Soccer World Cup) so why not 7th v 8th (you'd probably have to have 3v4 and 5v6 as well). However, the Crows are an Adelaide team, and the MCG is a Melbourne ground. Both of those are completely indisputable fact.

Don't think that one was mine. Ta.

 

[Mr Q]

Originally posted by Squeak
Don't think that one was mine. Ta.

Sorry. fixed it