We arent bitching about having to fly - we are bitching about how our flying is maximised and victorian teams is minimised and we are bitching that the gf is at your home ground every year in a national comp.
Beyond the GF – Why the MCG Contract doesn’t pass the Stink Test
- Thread starter Papa G
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
- Feb 21, 2006
- 20,735
- 19,581
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Turtles, NYJets, Celtics, Tottenham
Puhlease
Im talking about interstate teams flying 10 times a year vs vics half thatOf course your flying is maximized you live in the most remote city on the planet
- Feb 21, 2006
- 20,735
- 19,581
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Turtles, NYJets, Celtics, Tottenham
Because 10/18 teams are located in Victoria. It's not rocket science.
Yes and thats a problem.
Theres too many teams in one city - but also those teams play each other too often - if they played the interstate teams more it would even up the travel.
Your flying is minimised.
Derby locked in every year during H&A, when in a random fixture this should be a rare occurrence.
Derby every pre-season, and usually both Freo and WC also host a teams so they don't go anywhere in preseason.
10 trips in six months, the AFL already fix WA teams travel as best they can...they should travel more considering 16 of 18 clubs aren't from WA.
Hawks have 9 flights in 2022
North have 9 flights in 2022
Dees have 7 flights in 2022
Saints have 7 flights in 2022
And unlike the Eagles, those teams don't also get 10 home games with a full advantage against their opponent.
LOL, people regurgitating myths yeah some good evidence there!!
Your club actually wrote to the AFL to request no Derby in the final round before finals, believing it to be too taxing on players. So would rather potential of an away game.
Do the Knicks have a home court advantage against the Nets at MSG? Do Chelsea have a home ground advantage when playing Arsenal at the Bridge?
Like joining a comp with the Grand Final played at the MCG.
Your flying isn't "maximised". It is dictated mostly by having only two teams in WA. You actually have to play away games, you realise that right?
Maybe start advocating for a third WA team. You'll get an extra week at home each year. With smart fixturing around the bye could mean a stretch of up to a month where you don't leave WA.
Offset that with one game less of clear HGA, another competitor for membership and corporate support, another choice for players wanting to head back to WA,...
The mcg lawyers are why Mulgrave never got a train line. The organisation is extremely powerful
And WA didn't go crawling to the VFL looking for a lifeline? WA clubs didn't whore themselves out to VFL teams for the big transfer fees that kept them afloat? WA didn't happily fork out $4m in licence fees knowing the payoff would get them out of a totally f###ed situation?
You say in another post that WA isn't a utopia. Resisting the urge to regurgitate my usual line about WA and SA complaining about first world problems like a bunch of stupid little whiny bitches, Victoria wasn't either. The commission took control of the licenses and took control of the grounds, because that's the way they were going to save themselves financially. The entire professional sport of Australian football in this country in the mid-80's was bent over a table and maybe a year or two away from a pretty savage fate, and the 1987 crash wasn't even in the picture yet. Only what transpired anyway was ever going to save the sport in this country, and now it's not only the Australian sporting juggernaut, but all three of the big three, plus the Mars outposts - the entire f###ing mainland, Tasmanian rant not happening today - won big and kept their 3 main comps intact. You got relegated, but you also got paid for and you still get to see them. Any other scenario, half would be dead. Worst case scenario for WA, the WAFL goes under, and Victoria, with an immediate mandate to save itself from liquidation brought on by the courts, sets up its own team, organises the feeder comps in WA and then gets full control of the state and its footy resources...AFLWA, to go with the already existing AFLQ, AFLNSW and AFL Tas.
You made choices and you got a good deal with it. Where's that bitchslap Batman meme when you need it...
Orrrr vic teams could play each other once, play more interstate teams twice and even it up.
I bet you a thousand bucks i can find 50 examples of collingwood fans on the collingwood board saying words to the effect of “we played eagles on the road in wa this week so we wont play as well next week”
Put up or shut up
- Feb 21, 2006
- 20,735
- 19,581
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Turtles, NYJets, Celtics, Tottenham
Because you chose to join an expanded VFL. No point bitching about it now.
Senor M
SFAEW World Heavyweight Champion
How does this proposal actually work (Maybe you can you provide an example fixture). Because I see difficulties of this manipulation of the fixture as it removes derbys/showdowns/Q-clashes, etc. while not necessarily adding significant additional travel for Victorian teams compared to the non-Victorian teams.
Norf and hawks get hga in the stadium where they have an amazing record in tassie.
I can see why flying to tassie might seem a long way when your state is the size of a postage stamp - but its just like the eagles flying to geraldton son
Its still a home game for us - if we played regularly there its a home away from home.
I think you’ll find the bitching has nothing to do with the travel, but rather the outrageous umpiring advantage you get there.
We play most of the other interstate teams twice - instead play more vic teams twice. Evens up the travel a bit and also gives more vic teams more actual home and away games and less neutral games
Senor M
SFAEW World Heavyweight Champion
So instead of playing Adelaide twice in 2022, you want the Eagles to play another Victorian side (therefore having to travel further)?
As I asked earlier, I think an actual example fixture change would be beneficial to show your point here, because at this stage I can't see how it "evens up the travel" significantly enough to manipulate the fixture based on location rather than ladder position.
Right so the “outrageous umpiring” effects the game next week does it?
Im talking about collingwood fans after collingwood playing eag/dock one week then playing say hawks at the g the week after, saying “well we played in perth last week and that takes it out of you so im not expecting a great performance this week”
The commentators saying melb team to perth is the hardest trip in footy - not even looking at perth to tassie which is a longer flight with a terrible record away.
It will mean we will fly to adelaide once every two years instead of every year. So the travel is close enough to even for us.
On the other hand instead more vic teams with fly to play interstate teams instead of other melbourne teams
Senor M
SFAEW World Heavyweight Champion
Repeating the same rant without any example doesn't make it any more truthful.
As I said earlier--- an example on how the fixture could be changed and evidence to support how it would support the 8 non-Victorian clubs could potentially support your claim.
However based on my personal reflection of this situation, I don't see how the changes your proposing is going to make a significant difference to travel inequality to make it worth changing the fixture.
Perth to Launceston is about 10 minutes longer than Perth to Melbourne, but with less travel time into town from the airport it works out about the same.
Perth to Brisbane is the longest regular trip.
Flying interstate is about more than just flight time, it's about the disruption to your routine.
Packing bags, organising someone to look after the dog, travel to airport, sit around waiting, flight, transport to hotel, different bed/food etc and then repeat on the way home. It's a day out of your life regardless of whether it's a 1 hour or 3.5 hour flight.
- Status
Similar threads
