Fixture Collingwood boss wants new midseason mini cup and fixture changes

[threenewpadlocks]

So when St Kilda, who play their games at Marvel, asked to play Collingwood in Opening Round and get their biggest crowd in history, that should be denied?

St Kilda shouldn't even have to be in a position to need to ask, that's the point. They don't make enough money because they have disproportionately not held home games at Docklands vs. Collingwood in the recent past (so that Collingwood can play more games at the MCG in their away game), so the Saints have less money, so they have to sell some off some of their fairness to be able to be financially sustainable.

Otherwise, the AFL should randomly distribute all AFL games in Melbourne between Docklands and the MCG, to give all Melbourne teams equal fixturing fairness.

Should Hawthorn play Collingwood in Launceston or in front of 80k at the MCG?

If Hawthorn want the financial benefit of hosting home games in Launceston, a fair draw would mean it is entirely random who they host those home games against.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Why exactly are Collingwood naturally entitled to play more away games at the MCG when other clubs, except for the fact that it's inherently good for the AFL to make more money at the cost of running a fair sporting competition for all teams?

 

[Bay53]

Why exactly are Collingwood naturally entitled to play more away games at the MCG when other clubs, except for the fact that it's inherently good for the AFL to make more money at the cost of running a fair sporting competition for all teams?

I don't think it is about the AFL wanting to make more money, it is about the home clubs wanting to make more money.

As I say, do you think St Kilda would have pushed to be part of Opening Round so they could play a Sunday night clash with North Melbourne?

Melbourne play one game a year at Alice Springs - are they going to ask the AFL to fixture them against Collingwood there?

 

[Bay53]

St Kilda shouldn't even have to be in a position to need to ask, that's the point. They don't make enough money because they have disproportionately not held home games at Docklands vs. Collingwood in the recent past (so that Collingwood can play more games at the MCG in their away game), so the Saints have less money, so they have to sell some off some of their fairness to be able to be financially sustainable.

Otherwise, the AFL should randomly distribute all AFL games in Melbourne between Docklands and the MCG, to give all Melbourne teams equal fixturing fairness.

If Hawthorn want the financial benefit of hosting home games in Launceston, a fair draw would mean it is entirely random who they host those home games against.

Randomly distribute games between MCG and Marvel? So Anzac Day as a 50% chance of being played at the MCG?

Who does that help?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Randomly distribute games between MCG and Marvel? So Anzac Day as a 50% chance of being played at the MCG?

Who does that help?

The other 16 teams in a fair competition?

Of course, Collingwood and Essendon don't even deserve a monopoly on Anzac Day. Why?

And before you say "oh but they started it so they should be allowed to keep it", by the same logic, why aren't North Melbourne hosting the only game on Friday Nights in Melbourne for every single one of their home games? They started that too.

 

[Bay53]

The other 16 teams in a fair competition?

Of course, Collingwood and Essendon don't even deserve a monopoly on Anzac Day. Why?

And before you say "oh but they started it so they should be allowed to keep it", by the same logic, why aren't North Melbourne hosting the only game on Friday Nights in Melbourne for every single one of their home games? They started that too.

So is the aim to have a "fair" competition or are we also accepting that this is an entertainment business and we also need to be conscious of giving as many people as possible the opportunity to go to the footy?

Putting aside the "who plays on Anzac Day debate" for another time, how would Essendon and Collingwood playing at Marvel and denying 40k people of going to the footy help the other 16 clubs?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

So is the aim to have a "fair" competition

Yes

we also need to be conscious of giving as many people as possible the opportunity to go to the footy?

People want to go to the footy because they perceive it as giving the team they support a fair opportunity to win the flag. Footy is meaningless if, to an extent, some teams have predetermined success because the rules are written that way. Sport is of interest to people because it is largely a meritocracy. It is not good to risk that.

how would Essendon and Collingwood playing at Marvel and denying 40k people of going to the footy help the other 16 clubs?

Because they would get more experience relative to Collingwood and Essendon playing in front of a packed MCG crowd, which is what the Grand Final is.

 

[Bay53]

Yes

People want to go to the footy because they perceive it as giving the team they support a fair opportunity to win the flag. Footy is meaningless if, to an extent, some teams have predetermined success because the rules are written that way. Sport is of interest to people because it is largely a meritocracy. It is not good to risk that.


Because they would get more experience relative to Collingwood and Essendon playing in front of a packed MCG crowd, which is what the Grand Final is.

sorry mate that is never how it has worked up to now, and never will.

The sooner you learn that the better.

Your club wanted to have a big game at the MCG last year to celebrate 100 years in the VFL/AFL. Not surprisingly, they didn't request to play Fremantle despite Fremantle not getting a lot of opportunities to play at the Grand Final venue.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

sorry mate that is never how it has worked up to now, and never will.

The sooner you learn that the better.

Your club wanted to have a big game at the MCG last year to celebrate 100 years in the VFL/AFL. Not surprisingly, they didn't request to play Fremantle despite Fremantle not getting a lot of opportunities to play at the Grand Final venue.

So you're admitting the AFL is unfair, we just have to learn and accept that?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Your club wanted to have a big game at the MCG last year to celebrate 100 years in the VFL/AFL.

It would also be our request to play all 11 of our home games at the MCG.

Obviously, we merely request things of the AFL that they would have at least some chance of agreeing to.

 

[Bay53]

So you're admitting the AFL is unfair, we just have to learn and accept that?

of course it is unfair. Teams don't play each other twice, some teams due to their geography have to travel far more than others, some clubs have a 100+ year history that has given them a fan base whilst others have operated for 15 years in developing markets.

Some clubs are based in the locations where most of the players have grown up, others don't. Some clubs have made good administration and drafting decisions, others haven't.

I think many fans have far to much obsession with making every part of the game "fair", rather than trying to make the comp the best it can be, which can mean different concessions to different teams.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

of course it is unfair. Teams don't play each other twice, some teams due to their geography have to travel far more than others, some clubs have a 100+ year history that has given them a fan base whilst others have operated for 15 years in developing markets.

Some clubs are based in the locations where most of the players have grown up, others don't. Some clubs have made good administration and drafting decisions, others haven't.

I think many fans have far to much obsession with making every part of the game "fair", rather than trying to make the comp the best it can be, which can mean different concessions to different teams.

If your solution is "shut up and accept your unfairness, that's just the way it is", people don't have to agree with you, especially as theoretically every club has an equal stake in the competition's operations

and especially if the nature of that unfairness is quite obvious, such as North hosting Collingwood home game 4 times in 13 years, and Essendon hosting a Collingwood home game 13 times in 13 years

It's fair more easier to solve the unfairness of fixturing that it is to solve the unfairness of geography.

 

[Bay53]

It would also be our request to play all 11 of our home games at the MCG.

Obviously, we merely request things of the AFL that they would have at least some chance of agreeing to.

When have the Dogs requested to play 11 home games at the MCG. They were an anchor tenant of Docklands in what looked a really good deal at the time.

 

[Bay53]

If your solution is "shut up and accept your unfairness, that's just the way it is", people don't have to agree with you, especially as theoretically every club has an equal stake in the competition's operations

no it is not my solution, but I think you need to accept there are other things at play rather than making every single decision seem "fair", which in reality would not be "fair" any way because different teams have different needs to be successful.

Part of that is when 17 other clubs want to play Collingwood in a home game because it generates the best financial return, Collingwood is going to get a pretty good run with fixture.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

They were an anchor tenant of Docklands in what looked a really good deal at the time.

Is this sarcasm, or genuine?

It's well known that the AFL forced upon Saints, North and Dogs with the docklands deal up until the point that the AFL actually purchased the venue.

Dogs back AFL for better venue deal

Western Bulldogs president David Smorgon has called for action after the club made $320,000 from eight games this year

www.afl.com.au

It's worth noting that the Dogs average home crowd in those 2008 home games were 33,598. In making only $320,000 in profit for 2008, the Western Bulldogs only benefitted from an average of $1.38 profit per person that decided to attend in whatever matchday spend (accepting that Bulldogs would have already collected some of that revenue via memberships).

 

[threenewpadlocks]

no it is not my solution, but I think you need to accept there are other things at play rather than making every single decision seem "fair", which in reality would not be "fair"

I think it's entirely fair to distribute what is "fair" in the context of what clubs can control and what the AFL can control

The AFL can control its fixture

The clubs control where they elect to base their training base

because different teams have different needs to be successful.

Not really. All teams need money to be successful.

Part of that is when 17 other clubs want to play Collingwood in a home game because it generates the best financial return,

There should be no ability to request that of the AFL, or any club is feeling like it's missing out on playing Collingwood in a home game, because each team should host Collingwood 11 times in a 17 year cycle, given you play 11 home games against 17 other teams. North will not be hosting Collingwood 11 times in the 17 years after GWS entered from 2012-29 (excluding 2020), for example.

 

[Bay53]

The clubs control where they elect to base their training base

So the Gold Coast Suns could be based at Waverley Park could they?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

So the Gold Coast Suns could be based at Waverley Park could they?

If their owners, which is currently the AFL until they get enough members to hand over control, think so, yes. I don't think they ever would.

 

[Bay53]

If their owners, which is currently the AFL until they get enough members to hand over control, think so, yes. I don't think they ever would.

Then they would have to travel for every HOME game.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Then they would have to travel for every HOME game.

Yes, which is why it would be stupid for the Gold Coast Suns to train at Waverley Park, which is why they elect, as a club, not to train there.

What's your point in this hypothetical?

 

[CrowToon]

I don't think we should do anything with the season or fixture until we can sort out how to give clear air to all games on a Sunday.

Why the **** can this not be done? 12, 2.40, 5.20.

Why can this not be done?

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

I don't think we should do anything with the season or fixture until we can sort out how to give clear air to all games on a Sunday.

Why the **** can this not be done? 12, 2.40, 5.20.

Why can this not be done?

The number of poeple wanting to watch all three games would be pretty small. A few on sites like this, but among the less obsessed football public very few.
And a 5:20 start means finishing 40 minutes later the already problematic Sunday 4:40. People in outer suburbs already can't take the kids to the late Sunday game. 5:20 eastern might make sense for a Sunday Perth game (only 3:20 local time) but that's about it.

 

[Gough]

Kelly also floated a radical proposal of “a new asset” in the middle of the season where teams played multiple times for some sort of trophy.

A new asset, not a new competition or a new trophy or a new tradition but an asset. This sort of thinking might help explain why it feels like things are a bit off at the moment with footy.

 

[jdstorm]

Trying to copy the NBA and soccer without understanding how those different environments work for those sports.

Soccer has promotion/relegation and the NBA has 82 game seasons.

AFL has a 23 game season in soon to be a 20 team comp. One game of which is a glorified preseason game.

That basically leaves 3 flex double ups across the course of the season. And double ups are fun in the right context

What a muppett

 

[dazbroncos]

Craig Kelly after complaining about the current fixtures, is proposing a new mid season trophy. Interesting to see if the AFL will pursue it.

Kelly also floated a radical proposal of “a new asset” in the middle of the season where teams played multiple times for some sort of trophy.

“We play each other once and we say, right, what does that look like?” he said.

“Then do we actually have the opportunity to start a new asset that sits in the middle of the season where we condense two weeks of footy into sort of the opportunity for us to try some VFL players ... for us to be able to bring some guys in who are not necessarily playing every week, because we might say, ‘Hey, we’ve had a good start of the season, let’s rest some of the older guys and let’s see what these young guys do.’ Similar to what we did in COVID.

“We might pay multiple times during the week. So we’ve got almost a mini cup in the middle of the year that has a consequence and an outcome that’s good for the comp.”

He said that mini cup coiuld be for premiership points or it could be for some finals wildcard ticket.

“Then we go into the back part of the year (with a) different finals system,” he said.

Asked what that would mean for broadcasters, Kelly said maybe it was time to take a step back to move forward.

“If we’re smart about the (proposed) middle asset, it becomes an asset that’s valuable for the TV viewers, because it’s new and it takes some time to build,” he said.

Collingwood boss lets rip over major AFL issue: ‘Blow it up’

The Magpies heavy-hitter has come up with a radical concept while sending a serious warning to the league.

7news.com.au

Pies looking for something to try and win as they know they are cooked for the next 7 years now and cant get near the big one... looking for a participation award.

GO Catters