Roast IF it isn't biased or ncompetent..... THEN it must be inciteful media coverage part II

Remove this Banner Ad

Kellythatsit

Club Legend
Jun 20, 2008
1,342
2,062
Rainy Park City
AFL Club
West Coast
This is a perfect example of a post that is factually incorrect and then wrongly attributing the intent to VicBias.

- It wasn't an AFL led commission. It was a political inquiry into Victorian football to determine how to best support football in Victoria moving forward. This stuff happens all the time. WA Parliament is currently looking in to WAFC and how they spend their government funding.
-COVID restrictions were clearly stated as being an equaliser before WA lifted restrictions. 3 weeks later VIC allowed all teams to train in full, however the AFL made them train in line with restrictions in other states.
- West Coast get a lot of media attention in Melbourne. By far the most of any Non-Victorian team, and more than some Victorian teams. Every single show I watch mentions the Eagles, every single one. You obviously don't live here, so you're just guessing.

You're actually paranoid and delusional. All the years of when Vic bias was actually a thing (like back in the 80's , 90's and early 00's) has gotten stuck in your head. Now all you want to do is melt constantly about how unfair it all is. Quite pathetic really.
Mate, you seem to be taking this all very personally. Is there any reason you feel the need to be an asshat?

I felt I was being quite respectful of your views. I actually agree with a lot of your points. Not too sure why I’m getting lobbed with the paranoid and delusional tag as I don’t think I’ve said anything to offend.

I lived in Melbourne when the inquiry into Victorian football was established, but I will admit my recollections may not be accurate. It was a bad period to be a West Coast supporter in that town, with the Eagles going completely off the rails with the drugs saga. I will admit that experience has coloured my view of the AFL and how it interacts with the media. I know I’m not an impartial observer and I fully admit that.

But there is an imbalance that exists in the AFL and my contention is that the way to fix it is through the media. I don’t care about whether they pay us sufficient lip service after a big game or when we’re challenging for premierships. What I want, what we all want, is a fair and balanced competition. One that doesn’t send us to Tasmania while the Pies play their 5th straight game at the G; one that doesn’t put profit above integrity in the game; one that acknowledges and celebrates the achievements in football all over Australia and ESPECIALLY in the footy heartlands of WA, SA, TAS, and NT. Not just Victoria.

But the AFL is never held to account for its Victorian gaze because footy’s fourth estate holds a matching perspective. In my opinion, the competition will remain compromised and skewed until a more national and diverse AFL media can shine a light on the plight of non-Victorian clubs. That’s not paranoid mate, that’s reality.

Yes, there is 150 years of VFL history and only 30 years of AFL but this year has shown that the AFL is capable of change, but instead it continues to tinker around the edges, trying to make the game more “attractive” and bring higher ratings.

I know, this has all been said and I’m sure you’re finding it very tedious. So it makes me wonder why you’d even bother visiting a thread whose content and title is essentially the exact opposite of your own view. To start an argument? Tell us all how very wrong we are? How delusional and pathetic perhaps?

Plenty of other threads mate. If you feel like you need to begin calling people names, it might be time to bugger off to another one.
 
Last edited:

Broken_Chairs

Premiership Player
Jun 29, 2013
3,154
4,132
AFL Club
West Coast
That's what happens when you decide to join an expanded state league.

You've got to learn to tinker around the edges and reform things over time. West Coast have done that, will continue to do that, and you will melt constantly that the club bends over for the VFL.

Rinse and repeat.

What you fail to realise is that the competition is fairer today for non-Victorian team than what it has ever been in the history of the competition. This trend will continue, but it isn't a silver bullet. VFL was around for 93 years, AFL has been around for 30.

There are issues that need to be resolved, but the people on this board who cite one media article not about West Coat, or a goal review as being examples of Vic Bias have a huge inferiority complex and delusions of persecution.
I'm not too sure why you're directing your vicbias frustrations towards me? I'm melting? I fail to realise?

I agree it's a fairer competition than ever before and I agree that people go well overboard crying vicbias - the vicbias bogey man isn't around every corner.

But the systemic bias is there - and I'm not sure that, as fans, tinkering around the edges in silence is the best way to go about it - or we may end up with another 50 years of MCG grand finals.

The narrative needs to be changed and it's being spoken about in the media more than ever before - that didn't happen by people sticking their head in the sand.

That said, I completely agree that people crying foul at any opportunity, if unreasonable, can do more harm than good.
 

CM9000

BigFooty Optimist
Aug 19, 2016
2,667
5,670
Perth, WA
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
East Fremantle
There are genuine issues that the AFL can't brush aside.

Then there are stupid posters who claim the ARC is biased towards Victorian teams.

You can't say that because Victorian-Centric decision get made, that all claims of VIC bias are legitimate. That makes zero sense.

People undercut their own valid arguments about unfairness in the league by attributing every single one of their petty grievances to Victorian bias.



No, that isn't fair, and is the biggest example of Victorian -Centric decision making.



Agreed. Poor fixturing on part of the AFL.



Old news, the MCG deal was revised in 2005. Fifteen years ago.

We lost hosting rights to finals we should have hosted over 20 years ago. That is no longer the case, and it's time to stop being bitter about it.



There were mixed views on Tim Kelly's trade request on family grounds and not entertaining going to Fremantle. In most discussions there was multiple vieews where people did say that players in this day and age are able to nominate a club. It's media, it's an opinion business.



West Coast had 4 day break + travel to brisbane.
Richmond had 2 consecutive 5 days breaks + travel to Darwin and then back to Brisbane.
Pretty even to me, and teams often play each other with one team having one extra day off, I don't know why you're whingeing on this occasion.



This is so incredibly boring. You raise some legitimate instances of exactly what I acknowledged. AFL has at times made Victorian-centric decision making. The Grand Final being the one that is the most obvious.

Of course, all the media an infrastructure is in Melbourne. AFL is trying to become a national competition, but it is essentially still an expanded state league. The VFL was around for 90 years. The national competition for just 30. There is a heap of work to be done to get to a point of a national comp, but things will get there over time.

Majority of the points you raised, have ZERO to do with anything that I stated. You're somehow saying that because ther were injustices in the past, that people misguided views are somehow justified. That is completely illogical. It's pathetic that posters blame umpire errors or goal reviews on Vic Bias.

That's like the WA sport minister saying that the AFL owed WA a grand final due to West Coast paying a 4 million dollar entry fee back in 1987, and the AFL should not have the GF in QLD on those grounds. It completely ignores that the other team who entered the competition at that time did the exact same thing, and that team Was Brisbane.

People on this board cry Vic bias about goal reviews, as an example of Vic Bias, they talk about an instance where an article is focussed on our oppo's who lost the game, even though there was effusive praise for West Coast in other articles and media.

If West Coast recieve one less day break than their opponents, than it's vic bias, even though there have been occasions where West Coast received extra break against Victorian opposition.

Every decision the AFL makes that favours West Coast is seen as the exception to the rule, and the rule is "the AFL are VICBIAS". That way whenever the AFL make a decision that is not favourable to West Coat, out come all the cries of Vicco bias. It is one of the greatest examples of confirmation bias I have ever seen.

You also bang on about things that happened 20 odd years ago as examples of how the AFL is Vic Biased. It's tired, it's old, and it's time to leave the past in the past.

Instead, people (like you) want to use what happened 20 to 30 years ago, to justify their delusions that every decision is made with bias away from West Coast and Non-Victorian fans.
I’m not only listing examples from 20-30 years ago, though. I‘ve listed cases from numerous eras to illustrate my point, which is the fact the AFL has shown a propensity, from the past up till now, to be Vic centric. I’m not sure what you’re getting at with the last sentence there, but I definitely haven’t just cherry picked examples from the past. They are all important to include, because they showcase what happened 20 years ago, and what is still happening now.

People say many things on here that are first impressions of emotionally charged events. It’s a bit unfair to expect every single poster to completely distance themselves from something they have such an emotional investment in. Many things are said on here quite impulsively - I remember back in 2017 losing count of the amount of sh*t that was thrown at Simmo. And yet, this is all part of the experience of being an Aussie rules fan; you get these harsh words, these pure outbursts of deep felt pain or catharsis, and this is one of the reasons people follow sport, because this emotional investment is so worthwhile. This is an experience you can’t get anywhere else.

As such, you might see people claim the ARC is an example of Vic bias, although I’m not sure that’s exactly what they are literally saying.

However, I don’t think it’s fair for you to put every poster on here into the basket of looking for a scapegoat. There are real, structural problems with the AFL. Issues that are quite transparent, and the examples I noted (from the past 30 years) show a consistent attitude. Noting the MCG “home” finals wasn’t about looking for things in the past to fuel my own delusion, it was to show what they had done, and how it hasn’t changed years later.

Additionally, regarding the point about Richmond’s break schedule, I think you’re forgetting the fact every interstate team already travels far more than the Tigers. It’s arguably a more even playing field, because the Vic teams are finally experiencing what we’ve had to dealt with for years.

I think something can actually be said in regards to your comment about how the AFL is still an expanded state league. I agree, but I think that’s actually an indictment on them, since they seemingly have made little to no progress in actually making this league truly national. And it isn’t that difficult, either - rotating the GF or decentralising the administration from one state doesn’t take 3 decades to do.

Anyway, I find a lot of your recent comments a bit confusing, because they are quite different to your usual posting, especially in regards to what you’ve said about Tim Kelly. Has your opinion about the TK situation changed, especially given your own account name?
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

FreeTK

Premiership Player
Oct 2, 2019
3,773
6,756
AFL Club
West Coast
Mate, you seem to be taking this all very personally. Is there any reason you feel the need to be an asshat?

I felt I was being quite respectful of your views. I actually agree with a lot of your points. Not too sure why I’m getting lobbed with the paranoid and delusional tag as I don’t think I’ve said anything to offend.

I lived in Melbourne when the inquiry into Victorian football was established, but I will admit my recollections may not be accurate. It was a bad period to be a West Coast supporter in that town, with the Eagles going completely off the rails with the drugs saga. I will admit that experience has coloured my view of the AFL and how it interacts with the media. I know I’m not an impartial observer and I fully admit that.

But there is an imbalance that exists in the AFL and my contention is that the way to fix it is through the media. I don’t care about whether they pay us sufficient lip service after a big game or when we’re challenging for premierships. What I want, what we all want, is a fair and balanced competition. One that doesn’t send us to Tasmania while the Pies play their 5th straight game at the G; one that doesn’t put profit above integrity in the game; one that acknowledges and celebrates the achievements in football all over Australia and ESPECIALLY in the footy heartlands of WA, SA, TAS, and NT. Not just Victoria.

But the AFL is never held to account for its Victorian gaze because footy’s fourth estate holds a matching perspective. In my opinion, the competition will remain compromised and skewed until a more national and diverse AFL media can shine a light on the plight of non-Victorian clubs. That’s not paranoid mate, that’s reality.

Yes, there is 150 years of VFL history and only 30 years of AFL but this year has shown that the AFL is capable of change, but instead it continues to tinker around the edges, trying to make the game more “attractive” and bring higher ratings.

I know, this has all been said and I’m sure you’re finding it very tedious. So it makes me wonder why you’d even bother visiting a thread whose content and title is essentially the exact opposite of your own view. To start an argument? Tell us all how very wrong we are? How delusional and pathetic perhaps?

Plenty of other threads mate. If you feel like you need to begin calling people names, it might be time to bugger off to another one.
I'm not too sure why you're directing your vicbias frustrations towards me? I'm melting? I fail to realise?

I agree it's a fairer competition than ever before and I agree that people go well overboard crying vicbias - the vicbias bogey man isn't around every corner.

But the systemic bias is there - and I'm not sure that, as fans, tinkering around the edges in silence is the best way to go about it - or we may end up with another 50 years of MCG grand finals.

The narrative needs to be changed and it's being spoken about in the media more than ever before - that didn't happen by people sticking their head in the sand.

That said, I completely agree that people crying foul at any opportunity, if unreasonable, can do more harm than good.
I’m not only listing examples from 20-30 years ago, though. I‘ve listed cases from numerous eras to illustrate my point, which is the fact the AFL has shown a propensity, from the past up till now, to be Vic centric. I’m not sure what you’re getting at with the last sentence there, but I definitely haven’t just cherry picked examples from the past. They are all important to include, because they showcase what happened 20 years ago, and what is still happening now.

People say many things on here that are first impressions of emotionally charged events. It’s a bit unfair to expect every single poster to completely distance themselves from something they have such an emotional investment in. Many things are said on here quite impulsively - I remember back in 2017 losing count of the amount of sh*t that was thrown at Simmo. And yet, this is all part of the experience of being an Aussie rules fan; you get these harsh words, these pure outbursts of deep felt pain or catharsis, and this is one of the reasons people follow sport, because this emotional investment is so worthwhile, because it’s so authentic. This is an experience you can’t get anywhere else.

As such, you might see people claim the ARC is an example of Vic bias, although I’m not sure that’s exactly what they are literally saying.

However, I don’t think it’s fair for you to put every poster on here into the basket of looking for a scapegoat. There are real, structural problems with the AFL. Issues that are quite transparent, and the examples I noted (from the past 30 years) show a consistent attitude. Noting the MCG “home” finals wasn’t about looking for things in the past to fuel my own delusion, it was to show what they had done, and how it hasn’t changed years later.

Additionally, regarding the point about Richmond’s break schedule, I think you’re forgetting the fact every interstate team already travels far more than the Tigers. It’s arguably a more even playing field, because the Vic teams are finally experiencing what we’ve had to dealt with for years.

I think something can actually be said in regards to your comment about how the AFL is still an expanded state league. I agree, but I think that’s actually an indictment on them, since they seemingly have made little to no progress in actually making this league truly national. And it isn’t that difficult, either - rotating the GF or decentralising the administration from one state doesn’t take 3 decades to do.

Anyway, I find a lot of your recent comments a bit confusing, because they are quite different to your usual posting, especially in regards to what you’ve said about Tim Kelly. Has your opinion about the TK situation changed, especially given your own account name?
We can all agree that the AFL has some Victorian-centric tendencies. The issue with Non-Victorian clubs having to travel to GMHBA, Tassie, Ballarat etc and the Grand Final deal are things we can put in the "we all agree on this basket".

In terms of the overall structure of the competition. So much has already changed since we entered the comp 34 years ago. Fewer list spots, having to pay Vic teams, no finals at home, then losing earned home finals.

Things are trending towards a fairer more national competition. It doesn't make sense to bring up issues from 20 -30 years ago as examples of Victorian bias. Literally, those issues have been addressed and in any normal year are no longer a feature of our competition, so to bring them up as arguments about Vicbias in current day AFL landscape is redundant. Was it totally unfair at the time at which they happened? Absolutely! That's why the AFL changed the MCG agreement.

It is when people take that and then extrapolate that Victorian-Bias colours every single decision that the AFL makes. Majority of times they are not instances of Victorian-bias at all, and often the posters assertions aren't even factually correct to begin with.

That extends to this boards absolute obsession with Richmond. No matter what fixture Richmond got this year, there would be posters saying they got special treatment from the AFL.

EG: When the first 5 rounds of the season resumption were released, the melts on this board were incredible, saying Richmond got sucked off by the VFL again. I pointed out that they actually had a difficult draw, playing Collingwood first up, followed by St Kilda at Marvel (a stadium they don't play well at), followed by Hawthorn (who many said would play finals) followed by us off a 5 days break. People said I was crazy and continued their melt (Dark Sharks). Round 5 obviously got rescheduled, but ultimately Richmond went 1W 2L 1D from that period, with the sole win being their rescheduled R5 game. There certainly wasn't anyone on this board engaging in any actual reflection "oh, maybe I was wrong and Richmond didn't get an easy draw". Instead, they go hunting for the next circumstance on which they can project their "VFL is biased" propaganda on to.

Somehow it is now that Richmond didn't have to travel to Perth for the Perth hub. Logic and rationality will tell you only a finite amount of teams can play in Perth. The Tiger's didn't come to Perth, but the played GWS in Sydney (a place they haven't won at since 2015), Port in Adelaide (bad record there), and Essendon in Darwin, on a 5 day break, having to travel back to QLD and take on West Coast 5 days later.

Just like their fixture in round 2-5 being called soft, posters in here cry about Richmond being given an easy draw, which is completely detached from reality. West Coast has played 6 teams on their home ground against interstate opponents and an incredible 2 teams in actual away games (Brisbane and Gold Coast). Every other game has occurred on a neutral venue, and other than flying in to the hub, have not had to travel once during the entire fixture.

Yes, our fixture from round 13-17 was incredibly difficult. But unlike other teams such as Geelong and Collingwood, we completely avoided the first round of condensed fixturing. While other teams were playing off 4&5 day breaks in a hub. Our guys were sitting at home, sleeping in their own bed, playing off 7&8 day breaks against blokes who had just come out of quarantine. Somehow that is completely overlooked and absent from any discussion around weighting of the fixture. If you believe that big Victorian clubs are always sucked off by AFL, how do you explain Collingwood (arguably the biggest club, and the one that historically receives the most favourable treatment) having to come to Perth to quarantine in the hub, play West Coast at home, and then leave WA having been handed a fixture that saw them play 4 games in 14 days in 3 different states?

It feels like posters are looking for reasons to explain why the Tigers have been more successful than us over the last 4 seasons, and they then mine over the fixture to look for tiny advantages, incredibly, to the point of spending hours upon hours creating spreadsheets to back up their preconceived notions. Yet, when they do so, it is always an asymmetrical argument that fails to acknowledge the advantages over opposition we have had.

Sorry guys, Richmond have had more success over the last 3 years, simply because they have been a better team than us when you look at the 3 seasons as a collective.

The constant presence of "vic-bias" narrative has actually conditioned people to actively look for instances of Vic-bias. Rather than look at things with a balanced and critical eye, they process every decision made by the AFL through a filter of AFL being inherently biased. The end result is any issue such as venue for the 2020 AFL GF, which teams go to Perth, how many home games we get etc, is explained away as VFL doing VFL things.

My favourite is that the AFL chose Gabba as host of the AFL GF over SA/WA to ensure that the event flopped to the reinforce the importance of having the GF at the MCG in the future.

In order to believe that, you would have to believe that the AFL is willing to sabotage their own product as a means to create an argument for why the AFL GF needs to stay at the MCG. It is such an incredibly bizarre and flawed argument. The AFL doesn't need to do any such thing. All they need to do is hold up the contract with MCC to indicate why the GF will be going back to the MCG. Much easier than sabotaging their blue ribbon event. But don't let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
 
Last edited:

ukurrie

Debutant
Jul 12, 2015
136
332
Melbourne
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Liverpool FC, Las Vegas Raiders
It's not helpful to encourage posters, especially those that can articulate themselves well, to leave a thread or board, just because we don't like what they are saying.

This is going down the way most internet conversations are - zero sum game arguments.

Nobody is suggesting that Vic-bias doesn't exist - it still does! But it's not as bad as 20 years ago, even if we need to still apply pressure on things now. It's also true that anti-vic bias exists on here too. The obsession with finding the 3% of a new rule, or fixture, or plan which disadvantages us is remarkable.

We can continue to spend our energy doing that, or....we can apply pressure on the big things. Email McGowan and tell him you want the quarantine restrictions relaxed so we can host the first final. Email him and tell him you want them relaxed so that WA can host a hub from round 1 next year, if we need to. Or, if you are fine with the quarantine restrictions, don't - that's cool too - but don't scream Vic bias when you get an outcome you don't like. Email him and tell him you want him to negotiate with the AFL so that Perth Stadium is contractually guaranteed to get the GF if, at any time, the MCG cannot host in the next 35 years.

Email Gil and tell him to stop sending us to Tassie. Email Gil and tell him we should stick with a 17 round season and re-instate state of origin if the TV wants their money. Email Trevor and suggest that we ask to 'hub' in Melbourne for 2 week blocks next year a couple of times (play 3 games but only travel once) and then have an extended home run at other times - if we must play in Tassie, send us in the middle week.

We can bleat on here, or we can channel our energy on the right topics to be heard.
 

West Coast 06

Premium Platinum
Jun 5, 2006
6,679
4,015
Home
AFL Club
West Coast
Can’t be bothered quoting the whole post, but when we were in the first hub, weren’t Victorian clubs tucked up in their own beds playing each other FreeTK?

Don’t make out our fixture was some kind of dream run. The club (along with Freo) agreed to go to Queensland without an end date. They were ridiculed in the media for wanting to take sandwich toasters and blenders and except for two players, went without their families.

When the Vic teams were forced to hub due to their states medical emergency (because that’s what it took to get them there) they all took family, had Reno’s done at the resort FFS and the media loved them for it.

We are now hubbing for a second time, having played six home games at Optus in a 18 round fixture and having the condensed part of our fixture at the end of the season, right before finals. 👍

At the beginning of the season, WA gov said they would be happy to have the hub here. That was laughed at. Instead, the Brisbane gov “saved the comp” by allowing the AFL to pour millions of dollars into their community. Imagine having the season played in front of actual crowds?
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

FreeTK

Premiership Player
Oct 2, 2019
3,773
6,756
AFL Club
West Coast
This thread just makes me miss the anti-Vic original club song and the Kick a Vic campaign.
If only our two most successful coaches and one of our premiership captains weren’t Victorian, eh?

The club got rid of that verse because it quickly came to the conclusion that the intent of the verse has quickly become redundant and holding on to historical grievances isn’t a recipe for success.

Instead, cool headed pragmatism and an eye for reform where possible was the best way forward.

If only other could follow their lead.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

FreeTK

Premiership Player
Oct 2, 2019
3,773
6,756
AFL Club
West Coast
Can’t be bothered quoting the whole post, but when we were in the first hub, weren’t Victorian clubs tucked up in their own beds playing each other FreeTK?

Don’t make out our fixture was some kind of dream run. The club (along with Freo) agreed to go to Queensland without an end date. They were ridiculed in the media for wanting to take sandwich toasters and blenders and except for two players, went without their families.

When the Vic teams were forced to hub due to their states medical emergency (because that’s what it took to get them there) they all took family, had Reno’s done at the resort FFS and the media loved them for it.

We are now hubbing for a second time, having played six home games at Optus in a 18 round fixture and having the condensed part of our fixture at the end of the season, right before finals.

At the beginning of the season, WA gov said they would be happy to have the hub here. That was laughed at. Instead, the Brisbane gov “saved the comp” by allowing the AFL to pour millions of dollars into their community. Imagine having the season played in front of actual crowds?
Media certainly ripped on west coast during the first hub stint. Just as they did Richmond for the absurd requests.

If you have an issue with the club having to hub, that is an issue you need to take up with your state government.

The AFL actually did everything possible to endure some evenness in the fixture for west coast and freo including acquiescing to governments quarantine requirements, even though all teams have been in COVID safe states and were undertaking regular testing.

The reason why west coast are in a hub is because the wa government won’t allow fifo.

If that’s a bug bear you have, take it up with McGowan.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Last edited:

ukurrie

Debutant
Jul 12, 2015
136
332
Melbourne
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Liverpool FC, Las Vegas Raiders
When the Vic teams were forced to hub due to their states medical emergency (because that’s what it took to get them there) they all took family, had Reno’s done at the resort FFS and the media loved them for it.
What? They were slammed for that. It was the start of the 'entitled Richmond' storyline.

This thread just makes me miss the anti-Vic original club song and the Kick a Vic campaign.
Including Victorian WC members who used to brave Victoria Park and the Western Oval in the 80's and 90's?
 

Dark Sharks

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 21, 2011
20,774
53,691
Maynard was blocked
AFL Club
West Coast
You're right.

It would be so much easier just to go along to get along and not challenge delusions of persecution.

I apologize for delivering some hard truths and if that upsets anyone.

Doesn't upset me fam, you keep doing you :tophat:


We encourage diverse opinions on this board.

It's why we booted Hungrytiger and made SpacClef delete his account :raisedhands:
 

bzparkes

Brownlow Medallist
May 2, 2006
11,712
8,184
Brisbane
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
East Fremantle
Doesn't upset me fam, you keep doing you :tophat:


We encourage diverse opinions on this board.

It's why we booted Hungrytiger and made SpacClef delete his account.
Nah, we just got sick of 'sack Waterman' about 6 times a page.

I think Firefox crashing was also the final nail in the coffin for Spaceclef from memory.
 

ChampRevesby

Brownlow Medallist
May 8, 2012
18,358
23,106
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Royals, Wildcats, Warriors
Media certainly ripped on west coast during the first hub stint. Just as they did Richmond for the absurd requests.

If you have an issue with the club having to hub, that is an issue you need to take up with your state government.

The AFL actually did everything possible to endure some evenness in the fixture for west coast and freo including acquiescing to governments quarantine requirements, even though all teams have been in COVID safe states and were undertaking regular testing.

The reason why west coast are in a hub is because the wa government won’t allow fifo.

If that’s a bug bear you have, take it up with McGowan.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
This is true but its also true that the AFL deliberately bias the scheduling i.e. scheduling prime time games to the "big" Vic clubs and even going as far as removing a QF home ground advantage and giving it to a team who already spent 2 months playing at home. That is systematic bias not necessarily in favor of a particular state but an abdication of fairness for profit. There are numerous examples but this is the most egregious in recent times.
I do however think that those that complain about "unfair umpiring" as a "conspiracy of the Vics" (and similar) are just engaged in selective bias in which every decision is seen as unfair (frequency bias)

The media bias in sport tends to be along geographical boundaries, the west media tend to be a little more amenable to WA teams and vice versa. Its just a natural effect of who consumes the media and the need to pander to said base. Thats why its best to consume media of those who you disagree as the truth tends to be at the intersection.
 

FreeTK

Premiership Player
Oct 2, 2019
3,773
6,756
AFL Club
West Coast
This is true but its also true that the AFL deliberately bias the scheduling i.e. scheduling prime time games to the "big" Vic clubs and even going as far as removing a QF home ground advantage and giving it to a team who already spent 2 months playing at home. That is systematic bias not necessarily in favor of a particular state but an abdication of fairness for profit. There are numerous examples but this is the most egregious in recent times.
I do however think that those that complain about "unfair umpiring" as a "conspiracy of the Vics" (and similar) are just engaged in selective bias in which every decision is seen as unfair (frequency bias)

The media bias in sport tends to be along geographical boundaries, the west media tend to be a little more amenable to WA teams and vice versa. Its just a natural effect of who consumes the media and the need to pander to said base. Thats why its best to consume media of those who you disagree as the truth tends to be at the intersection.
It took me about 10 minutes to realise you were talking about Geelong.

You're also confusing 2017 (a year where Richmond played Geelong at GMHBA during H&A season but played the QF at MCG) with 2019 (Where richmond got 7 games at MCG).

The primetime slots have zero to do with us. We get 19/22 games beamed straight in to our clubs primary market on free to air tv + prime time slots against big vic clubs.

Having that ability means WC has a captive FTA audience for their sponsors etc, without necessarily needing it to have a game in a big prime time slot. It is a very good deal.

The primetime issue is far more a matter for smaller victorian clubs. That is one of the structural issues in the comp that sees the small vic clubs get max dividends from AFL and sees us getting very little.

That is actually something that works in our favour.

I agree, AFL prioritizes making many over fairness. That is something that sometimes works for and sometimes works against us.
 

ChampRevesby

Brownlow Medallist
May 8, 2012
18,358
23,106
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Royals, Wildcats, Warriors
It took me about 10 minutes to realise you were talking about Geelong.

You're also confusing 2017 (a year where Richmond played Geelong at GMHBA during H&A season but played the QF at MCG) with 2019 (Where richmond got 7 games at MCG).

The primetime slots have zero to do with us. We get 19/22 games beamed straight in to our clubs primary market on free to air tv + prime time slots against big vic clubs.

Having that ability means WC has a captive FTA audience for their sponsors etc, without necessarily needing it to have a game in a big prime time slot. It is a very good deal.

The primetime issue is far more a matter for smaller victorian clubs. That is one of the structural issues in the comp that sees the small vic clubs get max dividends from AFL and sees us getting very little.

That is actually something that works in our favour.

I agree, AFL prioritizes making many over fairness. That is something that sometimes works for and sometimes works against us.
At lot of the issues stem from the need to subsidize clubs who are not financially viable in an already over saturated market. The AFL are kicking the can down the road by not directly addressing the viability of some clubs and how that relates to the viability of competition in the long term. I think the AFL made a terrible strategic decision by expanding further into NSW and Qld, they basically added two more dependents into an already over dependent system. They can't really back out of it now without merging some Vic clubs together. As the dependency rises, efforts to maximize profit will become more aggressive which may be the end of any sense of fairness the comp might have left.
 

Top Bottom