Banking Finals

[cjwalkley]

So, seeing as the AFL's only answer to fixing up the MCC farce is to bank finals, does that also mean that interstate clubs who have had to play finals at the MCG will get to claim a final back in the future.

For example, Brisbane have to play Geelong at the MCG this year in the Preliminary Final even though it should be played at the Gabba. Next year the Lions finish 4th and Essendon top, so the Lions get given a final in compensation?

Imagine the outcry.

 

[coasting]

So, seeing as the AFL's only answer to fixing up the MCC farce is to bank finals, does that also mean that interstate clubs who have had to play finals at the MCG will get to claim a final back in the future.

For example, Brisbane have to play Geelong at the MCG this year in the Preliminary Final even though it should be played at the Gabba. Next year the Lions finish 4th and Essendon top, so the Lions get given a final in compensation?

Imagine the outcry.

The AFL will say "You should have finished higher"

 

[Gopies 2002]

So, seeing as the AFL's only answer to fixing up the MCC farce is to bank finals, does that also mean that interstate clubs who have had to play finals at the MCG will get to claim a final back in the future.

For example, Brisbane have to play Geelong at the MCG this year in the Preliminary Final even though it should be played at the Gabba. Next year the Lions finish 4th and Essendon top, so the Lions get given a final in compensation?

Imagine the outcry.

There is a contract in place for one prelim each year to be held there. If the contract specified that 1 prelim had to be played at the Gabba, do you think the Gabba trust would give it up ?

Blame the AFL, they did the deal.

 

[Homer]

So, seeing as the AFL's only answer to fixing up the MCC farce is to bank finals, does that also mean that interstate clubs who have had to play finals at the MCG will get to claim a final back in the future.

For example, Brisbane have to play Geelong at the MCG this year in the Preliminary Final even though it should be played at the Gabba. Next year the Lions finish 4th and Essendon top, so the Lions get given a final in compensation?

Imagine the outcry.

Not too bad... But that requires fairness and I think the AFL have shown everyone that they have no clue on the word.

 

[cjwalkley]

There is a contract in place for one prelim each year to be held there. If the contract specified that 1 prelim had to be played at the Gabba, do you think the Gabba trust would give it up ?

Blame the AFL, they did the deal.

That is exactly who I am blaming for the majority. Also the AFL's efforts at chnging the contract have been pure tokenism. Bleat to the press at finals time and then bank a few minor finals.

If the AFL gave Telstra Dome, Collingwood v Essendon and played Fremantle v Bulldogs type games only at the G, I'm sure the MCC would look at changing the Preliminary Final stipulation.

 

[Homer]

The AFL will say "You should have finished higher"

Don't rule it out

 

[Count Zero]

So, seeing as the AFL's only answer to fixing up the MCC farce is to bank finals, does that also mean that interstate clubs who have had to play finals at the MCG will get to claim a final back in the future.

For example, Brisbane have to play Geelong at the MCG this year in the Preliminary Final even though it should be played at the Gabba. Next year the Lions finish 4th and Essendon top, so the Lions get given a final in compensation?

It's an idea whose time has come. If the AFL refuse to mitigate the injustice of the MCC contract then they will be exposed as corrupt.

 

[campbell]

It's an idea whose time has come. If the AFL refuse to mitigate the injustice of the MCC contract then they will be exposed as corrupt.

Thats interesting, corrupt huh.is that what the problem is.........

I say make whoever Brisbane play in the Prelim play Brisbane 2 times next season at the Gabba,then watch the squealing,especially if its Essendon.Their players rarely have to pack the old toothbrush.....let alone at finals time.

 

[Homer]

It's an idea whose time has come. If the AFL refuse to mitigate the injustice of the MCC contract then they will be exposed as corrupt.

If? How much longer does it need to go on?

 

[Mr Q]

If the AFL gave Telstra Dome, Collingwood v Essendon and played Fremantle v Bulldogs type games only at the G, I'm sure the MCC would look at changing the Preliminary Final stipulation.

Excellent plan. Especially as it means that teams probably won't have to host a home final at a ground they've only played at once before that year.

Quite simple, for fairness, if the non-Vic teams have to host finals at the MCG, then they must play all their away games in Melbourne at the MCG to allow them to get a reasonable sense of the ground so they have some advantage in a game they are the "home" team at. If that means Carlton v Essendon gets shipped off to the Dome then so be it. Its only fair.

 

[Gopies 2002]

That is exactly who I am blaming for the majority. Also the AFL's efforts at chnging the contract have been pure tokenism. Bleat to the press at finals time and then bank a few minor finals.

If the AFL gave Telstra Dome, Collingwood v Essendon and played Fremantle v Bulldogs type games only at the G, I'm sure the MCC would look at changing the Preliminary Final stipulation.

The AFL is trying this already. But again have a contract which stipulates a certain number of "blockbuster" games.

However games that in prior years would have been at the G (such as Geelong v Essendon) are being moved away from the G.

 

[wilson]

How's this for an alternate.

The AFL accept that 1 prelim MUST be played at the MCG, however, conversely, 1 prelim MUST always be played somewhere else.

See how long it takes before the MCC come to the negotiating table.

 

[campbell]

Revist the contract, they have a perfect opportunity to do this.The ground is unable to hold 100,000 a lot less this year.

All contracts can be revisited,why not this one.


becuase the AFL doesn't want to, they are happy with it just the way it is.

 

[BrisGirl]

Blame the AFL, they did the deal.

In all my posts, that is all I have ever done.

I lay this farce at the feet of the AFL Commission, they signed a 40 year contract without foresight that in a period of 40 years, two Interstate teams would finish 1st and 2nd.

They are trying to divert the blame to MCC but the AFL Commission is a Corporate body put in place to maintain the integrity of the code representing all Clubs, in all of the States, and they failed.

The Interstate Teams should by right sue the AFL Commission on the grounds of negligence of failing their duty to the code and it's integrity.

 

[Dave]

In all my posts, that is all I have ever done.

I lay this farce at the feet of the AFL Commission, they signed a 40 year contract without foresight that in a period of 40 years, two Interstate teams would finish 1st and 2nd.

To be fair to the initial people involved, when the contract was signed, finals were not played outside of victoria.

They are trying to divert the blame to MCC but the AFL Commission is a Corporate body put in place to maintain the integrity of the code representing all Clubs, in all of the States, and they failed.

The Interstate Teams should by right sue the AFL Commission on the grounds of negligence of failing their duty to the code and it's integrity.

Interesting concept considering the commission runs the comp on behalf of the club. Effectively they'd be suing themselves!!

 

[Count Zero]

...becuase the AFL doesn't want to, they are happy with it just the way it is.

I am coming to the same conclusion campbell. The AFL blame the MCC for intransigence but when they get offered a chance to vary the contract they turned it down.

 

[topdon]

I am coming to the same conclusion campbell. The AFL blame the MCC for intransigence but when they get offered a chance to vary the contract they turned it down.

Geez you people are THICK!!! There is a CONTRACT in place!!! A CONTRACT is a legally binding agreement that CANNOT be altered unless agree upon by BOTH parties. The AFL signed this agreement. The MCC have every right, as a business, to stick to their guns and act in the best interests of its members.

You want to throw stones, throw them at the AFL, NOT the clubs that happen to benefit from the MCC agreement. Blame the AFL for being so damn short-sighted. They probably just saw dollar signs.

Variations were made, and the AFL agreed on those.

The AFL cannot continue banking finals forever.

 

[Dave]

Ah, I think that post was a reference to the MCC offer re carlton games , ie give them those and they'd bank prelims. An offer the AFL turned down to keep Ian "I gave Essendon Matthew Lloyd" Collins happy.

 

[understudy]

So, seeing as the AFL's only answer to fixing up the MCC farce is to bank finals, does that also mean that interstate clubs who have had to play finals at the MCG will get to claim a final back in the future.

For example, Brisbane have to play Geelong at the MCG this year in the Preliminary Final even though it should be played at the Gabba. Next year the Lions finish 4th and Essendon top, so the Lions get given a final in compensation?

Imagine the outcry.

Pfft all the advantages you have and you still come out with this whinge. No humility whatsoever.

 

[Homer]

Pfft all the advantages you have and you still come out with this whinge. No humility whatsoever.

You said it, yet you don't seem to live by it

 

[lasher]

the "G" is the traditional home of football...the grandfinal should always be played there regardless of of who is competing..
infact all finals should be played in melbourne...the greatest sporting city in australia...

 

[Homer]

the "G" is the traditional home of football...the grandfinal should always be played there regardless of of who is competing..
infact all finals should be played in melbourne...the greatest sporting city in australia...

Why stop there. Exclude the Non-Victorians and make yourselves happy.

The real money is in NSW. A super league would do it, because most of the money for the media rights is for that market. SA and WA would benefit greatly.

 

[crimson]

Blame the AFL, they did the deal.

Exactly, Why is the MCC getting all the blame. It takes two to tango and the AFL f$%^ed up when they signed it. They need to offer giant compensation. Failing that give them such a hard time with lousy fixtures that it affects their bottom line. Money speaks all languages.

 

[ok.crows]

Geez you people are THICK!!! There is a CONTRACT in place!!! A CONTRACT is a legally binding agreement that CANNOT be altered unless agree upon by BOTH parties. The AFL signed this agreement. The MCC have every right, as a business, to stick to their guns and act in the best interests of its members.

You want to throw stones, throw them at the AFL, NOT the clubs that happen to benefit from the MCC agreement. Blame the AFL for being so damn short-sighted. They probably just saw dollar signs.

Variations were made, and the AFL agreed on those.

The AFL cannot continue banking finals forever.

Geez you are thick topdon.

The MCC offered the AFL a solution. The MCC offered to remove the "at least one final at MCG" clause in exchange for the games at Optus going to the MCG.

The AFL refused, and took most of these games to Telstra Dome.

In other words, the AFL had the asking price to solve the MCG finals contract fiasco, and instead they grabbed that price for
THEMSELVES !!!

That is criminal. They had a commitment to interstate fans and clubs to award home finals, and they had the means to deliver on that promise, but they renegged and took the bargaining chips for their own greedy selves, at the expense of hundreds of thousands of interstate fans.

 

[ok.crows]

Exactly, Why is the MCC getting all the blame. It takes two to tango and the AFL f$%^ed up when they signed it. They need to offer giant compensation. Failing that give them such a hard time with lousy fixtures that it affects their bottom line. Money speaks all languages.

They didn't need to offer giant compensation.

All they had to do was schedule the minor round Optus games at MCG next year, and it would have been sweet.

Instead, the AFL wanted the games at Telstra (their own ground) and they sacrificed home finals for interstate clubs to award THEMSELVES those games.