AFL corruption yet again

[sprockets]

Why not pay this to the club instead of the person? No-one would begrudge the club making some legitimate extra money.

 

[Danger!Selwood]

I never said we deserve a leg up. The fact is that Geelong play and train (4/5 times a week?) on their home ground and also play at the MCG fairly regularly, whereas we only play on ours and only once a year at SS, if that. Sure it's a slight advantage for us to play at home but playing at SS is too great an advantage, especially considering that just one less point in their drawn game would mean we'd finish ahead of them. The rules state that the side above on the ladder gets a home State final (not advantage), that's all.


Where are we complaining about being hard done by?

As I asked, what's a fair (to everyone) alternative?

That's the stupid part, 'fair to everyone'. Geelong should be gaining a distinct home ground advantage for finishing above Richmond, that's it.

And if by 'everyone' you mean members, just check out what the AFL allowed to happen with the AFL members last week in regards to tickets, and you'll soon see they couldn't give a stuff!

 

[Kwality]

Absurd

Isnt the problem that the H&A FIXture doesnt require some clubs to play at Geelong, i.e the AFL practice selectivity, dont treat clubs equally?

 

[Kwality]

Why not pay this to the club instead of the person? No-one would begrudge the club making some legitimate extra money.

So the guy doing the work gets .... e.g when NicNat jumps on a plane and goes up to the Pilbara ?
https://thewest.com.au/sport/pilbar...-with-west-coast-eagles-and-bhp-ng-b88482029z

 

[PowerForGood]

Wrong answer. The system dictates that the side that finishes above gets a home State final. What's more 'fair' about it being at the Cattery compared with the MCG?

You are quoting "the system" which is unfair.
I am answering what is fair, the Cats should be able to play a final they have earned, at home, a ground that is better suited to finals football than other approved venues.
How can it be fair to play it at your opponent's home ground, regardless of state?

 

[PowerForGood]

Absurd

So is your response.
Its ok that that you disagree, but tell me what is absurd about a system that has no special rules that advantage teams based on where they are from?

 

[jatz14]

Again, I'm not arguing with you about 3rd party arrangements and I'm fairly confident majority, if not all clubs, are involved in these and there's equal opportunity for all clubs to engage in it. It isn't equal/fair when the AFL is stepping in to aid a club over another with these scenarios. Why don't the AFL pay Lynch to join Collingwood? Im purely discussing this based on on-field outcomes.

There isn't an equal opportunity for all clubs, that's the whole point.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[Freshwater]

Gold Coast probably shouldn't exist. Bri's should have played 4-5 games down the road on the coast. I've lived there for quite a while and it wasn't ready for a full time AFL team. South Australia and Western Australia should have had 3rd teams first. Tassie is and should have been in before both. I know the arguments but they are just wrong.

 

[PieLebo87]

There isn't an equal opportunity for all clubs, that's the whole point.

I've acknowledged that. Doesn't mean the AFL has the right to try influence a player's decision in a trade scenario. That's just cheating...in the open.

 

[Colonial]

I've acknowledged that. Doesn't mean the AFL has the right to try influence a player's decision in a trade scenario. That's just cheating...in the open.

Yes it does. Even comp etc.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[Andrew Mc]

With a trip to Perth thrown in for free. Bonus . Lucky us.

One would imagine that you need to travel somewhere every 2 years. Unless you want to end the season with the derby (which I've heard many times that isn't desired). Perth, Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne. Take your pick. And I'd imagine that Adelaide teams are the preferred team to travel to WA due to their relative closeness. It's really just common sense.

 

[Seadog]

Can't believe I just read all that.
Coupla points: If Geelong actually played the big Melbourne clubs more often at home during the H and A season they might have a point, but they are happy to take the financial benifits of playing in Melbourne and the advantage of playing mostly interstate and weaker clubs at home.

As to the Lynch question, lots of jumping up and down about a hypothetical scenario.
Loved your work on the Drugs board Ancient but this hasn't been your finest hour.

 

[mick500]

One would imagine that you need to travel somewhere every 2 years. Unless you want to end the season with the derby (which I've heard many times that isn't desired). Perth, Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne. Take your pick. And I'd imagine that Adelaide teams are the preferred team to travel to WA due to their relative closeness. It's really just common sense.

What about the next part of the equation.. in making it a Sunday twilight match and then giving us the first final on a Thursday night? Is that common sense as well?

Like I said All they had to do was fix 1 of 3 things to not screw us.

Either don't give us the trip to Perth in the last round.

But if you do, don't make it Sunday twilight.

But if you do, don't give us the first final on a Thursday night.

Useless.

 

[Andrew Mc]

What about the next part of the equation.. in making it a Sunday twilight match and then giving us the first final on a Thursday night? Is that common sense as well?

Like I said All they had to do was fix 1 of 3 things to not screw us.

Either don't give us the trip to Perth in the last round.

But if you do, don't make it Sunday twilight.

But if you do, don't give us the first final on a Thursday night.

Useless.

There's a weekend off in between. Hardly an issue. And as others have said, most clubs are requesting that the gap not be huge - you'd have a fair enough point if it wasn't a bye round. Win or lose this week and you're getting a nice gap to your next game.

 

[Danger!Selwood]

Can't believe I just read all that.
Coupla points: If Geelong actually played the big Melbourne clubs more often at home during the H and A season they might have a point, but they are happy to take the financial benifits of playing in Melbourne and the advantage of playing mostly interstate and weaker clubs at home.

As to the Lynch question, lots of jumping up and down about a hypothetical scenario.
Loved your work on the Drugs board Ancient but this hasn't been your finest hour.

So because we played Richmond at Geelong this year (after all its obviously simply just our choice right, the AFL have no say?) we should be able to play them at home in a final?

Also here's a list of all the teams we played at Simonds this year
- Bulldogs, reigning premiers
- Port 5th
- Crows 1st
- Swans 6th
- Tigers 3rd
- Giants 4th
- Dockers 14th

Wouldn't say they were easy games against weak opposition.

 

[Freshwater]

What about the next part of the equation.. in making it a Sunday twilight match and then giving us the first final on a Thursday night? Is that common sense as well?

Like I said All they had to do was fix 1 of 3 things to not screw us.

Either don't give us the trip to Perth in the last round.

But if you do, don't make it Sunday twilight.

But if you do, don't give us the first final on a Thursday night.

Useless.

I agree, that's exactly what we copped last year. Late twilight in Perth, then a bloody stupid Thursday night final.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

So because we played Richmond at Geelong this year (after all its obviously simply just our choice right, the AFL have no say?) we should be able to play them at home in a final?

Also here's a list of all the teams we played at Simonds this year
- Bulldogs, reigning premiers
- Port 5th
- Crows 1st
- Swans 6th
- Tigers 3rd
- Giants 4th
- Dockers 14th

Wouldn't say they were easy games against weak opposition.

Even worse. You played good opposition with a very big home ground advantage. Playing them at a slightly more neutral ground may have seen one or two extra losses. We then would have been ahead of you on ladder and we would not be having this discussion.....

 

[Danger!Selwood]

Even worse. You played good opposition with a very big home ground advantage. Playing them at a slightly more neutral ground may have seen one or two extra losses. We then would have been ahead of you on ladder and we would not be having this discussion.....

And the majority of those teams we played twice. That's what tends to happen when you finish higher on the ladder.

We have one bloke complaining we only play weak and interstate sides at Simonds, and you whinging that it's unfair we play good teams there.

What the hell do you guys want? Last time I checked, the whole point of a home ground advantage is that it gives you an advantage! Who would have thought!!

 

[MosquitoBrigade]

^^ how the hell does this discussion find its way to every thread??

 

[Ancient Tiger]

And the majority of those teams we played twice. That's what tends to happen when you finish higher on the ladder.

We have one bloke complaining we only play weak and interstate sides at Simonds, and you whinging that it's unfair we play good teams there.

What the hell do you guys want? Last time I checked, the whole point of a home ground advantage is that it gives you an advantage! Who would have thought!!

Haha. You now see that isn't straight forward. We play on a largely neutral ground against Victorian opposition and thus we do not get a big advantage. Once we get to finals we get a small advantage against other Victorian teams. Geelong has a big advantage at home but loses out a bit in finals.

I think that's a fair compromise. And obviously so do the AFL.

Geelong supporters such as yourself are too one eyed to see this. Simple.

 

[BK Eaglesfan]

Haha. You now see that isn't straight forward. We play on a largely neutral ground against Victorian opposition and thus we do not get a big advantage. Once we get to finals we get a small advantage against other Victorian teams. Geelong has a big advantage at home but loses out a bit in finals.

I think that's a fair compromise. And obviously so do the AFL.

Geelong supporters such as yourself are too one eyed to see this. Simple.

I'm curious how you see your home games as largely neutral? Of your 11 home games this year, only 4 were against 'co tenants' and on the flip side of that you had at least one away game against a co tenant from a quick scan of fixtures. Of the 7 other home games, you got 5 against non Victorian teams.

Geelong played 'home' games against Collingwood and Hawthorn at the MCG as well as another one at Etihad against North, all three of these playing 'home' against tenants. Plus Melbourne at Etihad.

The AFL clearly believe it's reasonable for Geelong to play finals in Geelong as they have fixtured this previously. The only argument I can see against is fans missing out, but I'm disappointed integrity and consistency in rules are such a poor second to selling more tickets. I get the disappointment that would exist for Richmond fans that would have missed out at Simonds, but in reality, Geelong earned that home final and how many tickets would Richmond fans have got if Adelaide or GWS had finished 2nd and you were playing them away?

 

[BK Eaglesfan]

^^ how the hell does this discussion find its way to every thread??

Agreed. Unfortunately I've just contributed to it but really if all roads about AFL integrity are going to lead back to Geelong home finals, could be a long month.

Not a fan of all McLachlan does, but honestly this whole (original) topic was the media asking a hypothetical question, framing his carefullly worded response as a quote out of nowhere and making their own story. If we're talking integrity issues, the click bait nature of journalism, feeding the lazy masses who respond to headlines, should be the largest topic on BigFooty.

 

[Deep]

Agreed. Unfortunately I've just contributed to it but really if all roads about AFL integrity are going to lead back to Geelong home finals, could be a long month.

Not a fan of all McLachlan does, but honestly this whole (original) topic was the media asking a hypothetical question, framing his carefullly worded response as a quote out of nowhere and making their own story. If we're talking integrity issues, the click bait nature of journalism, feeding the lazy masses who respond to headlines, should be the largest topic on BigFooty.

Believe me it'll be more than a month. It'll keep happening until Geelong get 11 home games and all 3 finals depending of course which ones they earn at home.

 

[sprockets]

You are quoting "the system" which is unfair.
I am answering what is fair, the Cats should be able to play a final they have earned, at home, a ground that is better suited to finals football than other approved venues.
How can it be fair to play it at your opponent's home ground, regardless of state?

Because it's also Geelong's 'home' ground for 4 games a year? Due to its irregular shape (the Cats play and train there 5 or 6 times every week, the Tigers don't train at the MCG so only get to use it once every two weeks) Skilled Stadium is simply too great an advantage to play finals there and they're extremely fortunate to play H&A there. The fairest venue is the MCG, by a LONG way.

Wait... SS is better suited to finals football than ES and the MCG? I don't think you'll find many people that believe that, including many Geelong supporters.

 

[smasha]

I heard only 34k members combined for the two competing sides can attend the grand final,while corporates watch their first game of the year there,now that's corruption!

So much for being the people's game,greedy Gil.