Finals locations (again)

[bruce rules]

Hi guys,
This is my first post so try not to crucify me too much. I have read some of the vitriolic attacks on this board- some of you guys are savage
My point is this. While it is unquestionably unfair that Adelaide had to come to Melbourne to play its semi-final, when finals are played interstate, the home team has a massive advantage. What I mean is, if Essendon has HGA against Collingwood, it means nothing, whereas if Adaide has HGA against Collingwood, it is a big plus.
Having said that, the Melbourne team who don't earn HGA have an advantage over interstate teams who don't earn HGA, as they still get to play in Melbourne. In a way this should balance out over time, so that in the end it means that HGA is much much more important for interstate sides.
Basically there is the chance in any given finals series that a Melbourne team's HGA will be significantly less than that of an interstate team, and vice versa. We have to put this down to the vagaries of a national competition, and accept that it should all balance out over time. The only way of eliminating this problem would be to have an equal number of teams from each state (in fact only one team from each state), but obviously this is unrealistic.
Which brings me back to the MCC agreement. We have a final system which is inherently unfair to certain clubs in any given season depending on how the ladder finishes up. To add an outside element of unfairness in the form of the MCC agreement is absurd. I am studying law and there is no question in my mind that the AFL could walk away from the agreement. While it may have to pay substantuial damages, so what- the AFL should threaten to move the finals series to Colonial Stadium. While this would be a lose-lose situation, it wouldn't happen. The MCC is hardly going to lose its biggest money-spinner becasue of some stupid agreement which comes into play only once in a few years (three times in the last decade), especially if the AFL offered the MCC compensation. I understand that there is pride at stake, but money keeps the MCG going, not pride alone.
What do yiou guys think?

 

[bruce rules]

Ok then apparently it was my 9th post. Just thought I'd get that in before any of you pick up on it and pay me out

 

[Dogwatcher]

Originally posted by bruce rules
Hi guys,
This is my first post so try not to crucify me too much. I have read some of the vitriolic attacks on this board- some of you guys are savage
My point is this. While it is unquestionably unfair that Adelaide had to come to Melbourne to play its semi-final, when finals are played interstate, the home team has a massive advantage. What I mean is, if Essendon has HGA against Collingwood, it means nothing, whereas if Adaide has HGA against Collingwood, it is a big plus.
Having said that, the Melbourne team who don't earn HGA have an advantage over interstate teams who don't earn HGA, as they still get to play in Melbourne. In a way this should balance out over time, so that in the end it means that HGA is much much more important for interstate sides.
Basically there is the chance in any given finals series that a Melbourne team's HGA will be significantly less than that of an interstate team, and vice versa. We have to put this down to the vagaries of a national competition, and accept that it should all balance out over time. The only way of eliminating this problem would be to have an equal number of teams from each state (in fact only one team from each state), but obviously this is unrealistic.
Which brings me back to the MCC agreement. We have a final system which is inherently unfair to certain clubs in any given season depending on how the ladder finishes up. To add an outside element of unfairness in the form of the MCC agreement is absurd. I am studying law and there is no question in my mind that the AFL could walk away from the agreement. While it may have to pay substantuial damages, so what- the AFL should threaten to move the finals series to Colonial Stadium. While this would be a lose-lose situation, it wouldn't happen. The MCC is hardly going to lose its biggest money-spinner becasue of some stupid agreement which comes into play only once in a few years (three times in the last decade), especially if the AFL offered the MCC compensation. I understand that there is pride at stake, but money keeps the MCG going, not pride alone.
What do yiou guys think?

My eyes are spinning...you've lost me!
Welcome aboard anyways.

I'm not going to get into the debate about finals except to say this....
It's funny how when the supporters of interstate teams complained about the finals programming, all the supporters of Vic sides generally told them to shut up and called them whingers, while when Eddie complains about the salary cap he is called a whinger.
Why can't people conceed the point or at least listen rather than resorting to calling someone a whinger? It's silly and counterproductive to so many debates.
Anyway, that's my whinge.

 

[Portia]

I think that you guys underrate the home ground advantage of playing in Melbourne.

Believe it or not, but sides that only play one or no matches at the MCG during the year do not negate a Melbourne side's home ground advantage during finals.

In your example you named Essendon vs Collingwood and Adelaide vs Collingwood. This is an incomplete sample.

You need to also consider Collingwood vs Essendon and Collingwood vs Adelaide.

if there were no ground contracts, you'd break even...the home side would usually be better off, unless they were two local sides, which is something that is difficult to fix up.

However, home finals outside of Melbourne obviously have no greater advantage than home finals in Melbourne against those non-Victorian sides.

Sreiously, I don't see why people find it so hard to figure this out, no offense.

 

[grayham]

The AFL could easily walk away from the MCC contract, they just dont want to.
I dont really know why, but the Melbourne establishment politics and a miriad of conflicts of interest probably has a fair bit to do with it.

As an aside the ARU convinced all the stadiums that they use to remove all advertising and provide "clean" stadiums for a one-off event (RWC) that will probably draw crowds less than an average AFL season.
The difference being the ARU have competent management with good negotiating skills.