Opinion If you could, would you reward the side who finishes top of the ladder as the grand final host?

[kranky al]

Yes. At the MCG.

mate at 5k per pop how many family and friends is he going to run out in front of at the g

 

[HTT]

mate at 5k per pop how many family and friends is he going to run out in front of at the g

Would have thought the club could lend some assistance here

 

[kranky al]

Would have thought the club could lend some assistance here

exactly how many family and friends are they giving tickets, paying airfares, hotels etc for.....

 

[Turnover]

mate at 5k per pop how many family and friends is he going to run out in front of at the g

The people who can afford it. Maybe time to face the fact. The AFL Grand final is held at the MCG. All Australian kids dream of running onto the MCG on grand final day. Deal with it Al.

 

[kranky al]

The people who can afford it. Maybe time to face the fact. The AFL Grand final is held at the MCG. All Australian kids dream of running onto the MCG on grand final day. Deal with it Al.

mate you say all kids when i know for a fact a young wa kid dreams of winning a gf in front of family and friends - and that aint in victoria as ive clearly demonstrated.

now a few years ago when we had that stinking cesspit subi i might have agreed with you - but optus is quantifiably a better stadium to watch football at by every single metric bar historical significance

which to a west aussie is no where near as large as it is for a vicco.

 

[port_adelaide_1870]

Top of the ladder some how should go straight to a prelim... reward the top team IMO.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

No. Final should always be at the MCG. Tradition is something.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Top of the ladder some how should go straight to a prelim... reward the top team IMO.

You get two home finals that is a huge reward. Don't need anymore.

 

[kranky al]

Top of the ladder some how should go straight to a prelim... reward the top team IMO.

the minor premiership should just be worth more - the home finals you get are reward enough

 

[dean33]

Or would you rotate the grand final among the states, where Victoria gets it every second year, WA and SA every six years, and NSW and QLD every 12 years. My only objection to rotating would be that it'd be a shame if a grand final between Fremantle and West Coast fell at the SCG, Adelaide vs. Port GF at the Gabba etc., instead of the teams home state.

You could argue the same for two Victorian sides at the MCG, but at the latest, you'd have to determine the GF venue before the first round of finals.

I like the idea of the minor premier hosting the grand final however I think it only works if it’s a Victorian side and the venue is the MCG.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Yes, it just seems common sense for a non-profit organisation.

The AFL is "not for profit" in the same way that North Korea is "democratic".

 

[Turnover]

mate you say all kids when i know for a fact a young wa kid dreams of winning a gf in front of family and friends - and that aint in victoria as ive clearly demonstrated.

now a few years ago when we had that stinking cesspit subi i might have agreed with you - but optus is quantifiably a better stadium to watch football at by every single metric bar historical significance

which to a west aussie is no where near as large as it is for a vicco.

Keep shouting then.

 

[telsor]

exactly how many family and friends are they giving tickets, paying airfares, hotels etc for.....

Just how many do you think would get tickets if it was in Perth?

 

[telsor]

The AFL is "not for profit" in the same way that North Korea is "democratic".

"not for profit' means the money doesn't get given to it's owners, but instead gets spent within the game.

Less "profit" for the AFL means smaller club distributions, less money poured into upgrading grounds, junior development, etc. etc. etc.

 

[Footy Smarts]

"not for profit' means the money doesn't get given to it's owners, but instead gets spent within the game.

Less "profit" for the AFL means smaller club distributions, less money poured into upgrading grounds, junior development, etc. etc. etc.

Well yes it gets spent within the game if you define "the game" as money leaching executives and hangers on. Average wage just for the 12-person AFL executive is almost $900k. Not bad if you can get it but I don't really see the need for a small group of average executives with among the easiest jobs in the world to be paid as much as the biggest stars in our game. I mean Darren Birch is the AFL's General Manager of Growth, Digital and Audiences and has been for years. For overseeing the mediocre digital offerings of the AFL he gets paid more than 90% of players.

And if you think the monetisation of the game has caused swathes of money to be directed to local footy I've got a bridge to sell you.

 

[telsor]

Well yes it gets spent within the game if you define "the game" as money leaching executives and hangers on. Average wage just for the 12-person AFL executive is almost $900k. Not bad if you can get it but I don't really see the need for a small group of average executives with among the easiest jobs in the world to be paid as much as the biggest stars in our game. I mean Darren Birch is the AFL's General Manager of Growth, Digital and Audiences and has been for years. For overseeing the mediocre digital offerings of the AFL he gets paid more than 90% of players.

And if you think the monetisation of the game has caused swathes of money to be directed to local footy I've got a bridge to sell you.

I suppose that depends how you define "swathes" there is definitely a hell of a lot more spent on the grass roots now than there was 20, 40, or 80 years ago.

I agree that a lot of people are overpaid at the AFL, but the point was that they *ARE* a not for profit as per the definition. People who expect it to mean that nobody should be making any money form it are kidding themselves.

 

[Goomba1973]

I used to think so but upon further reflection .......No, The MCG is the home of the GF and should stay that way even if another stadium had a bigger capacity, it's not like interstate clubs have not won their fair share of GFs at the G. 12 GF wins out of the last 29 played have been won by interstate clubs since 1990 and 17 of those grand finals have had an interstate club represented, and there are less interstate clubs than Vic based clubs, so all things being equal it is a pretty clear there is no significant advantage that differs from travelling every second week. Nostalgia in sport is not something that should be dismissed purely to appease a particular fan base because they think it is unfair.

 

[PAFC_1870]

Leigh Matthews came out with good suggestions, home Finals all the way to the GF regardless of Qualifying result.

Another option would be to pick the opponent.

Top should be rewarded more. Especially with interstate teams being disadvantaged on GF day.

 

[Hallstrom]

Leigh Matthews came out with good suggestions, home Finals all the way to the GF regardless of Qualifying result.

Another option would be to pick the opponent.

Top should be rewarded more. Especially with interstate teams being disadvantaged on GF day.

Nah top doesn't mean as much with the uneven fixture. Regular season is for sorting out finalist and first week seedings then it should go out the window.

 

[Furn2]

I would yes.

 

[TrimmyTraggot]

To those saying no, why not? Isn't it unfair for Victoria to host the grand final every year, pandemics that troll Victoria aside?

Logically it would make the competition fairer. But it's a Victorian sport. It would be like moving that thing in England where they roll the cheese down the hill.

It just seems like the wrong thing to do despite it making the competition "fairier". Travelling shouldn't be considered such as disadvantage to begin with. Our competition is weak in terms of travel and "6 day breaks". France had no problem winning the world cup in Russia. AFL players had no problem with extra day breaks either until Chris Scott started using it as an excuse.

 

[raskolnikov]

If the draw was equal then maybe but not as it stands.

 

[The Hobo]

To those saying no, why not? Isn't it unfair for Victoria to host the grand final every year, pandemics that troll Victoria aside?

They're saying no because they're Vic clubs who already have that advantage - without having to finish on top.

Why give up something for nothing in their case.

 

[Final Siren]

I love the idea of teams fighting for the right to host the GF. It would add so much excitement.

Would do a fair bit to unite a city behind one team, too, which would be better than now, where everyone vaguely supports some out-of-town team just because they're not the local rival.

 

[Final Siren]

Also someone's probably done this already but I can't be bothered checking the whole thread, so it would have been:

2020: SA: ? v ?
2019: Vic: Richmond v GWS
2018: Vic: West Coast v Collingwood
2017: SA: Adelaide v Richmond
2016: NSW: Sydney v Bulldogs
2015: WA: West Coast v Hawthorn
2014: NSW: Sydney v Hawthorn
2013: Vic: Hawthorn v Fremantle
2012: Vic: Hawthorn v Sydney
2011: Vic: Collingwood v Geelong
2010: Vic: Collingwood v St Kilda
2009: Vic: St Kilda v Geelong
2008: Vic: Geelong v Hawthorn
2007: Vic: Geelong v Port Adelaide
2006: WA: West Coast v Sydney
2005: SA: West Coast v Sydney
2004: SA: Port Adelaide v Brisbane
2003: SA: Collingwood v Brisbane
2002: SA: Brisbane v Collingwood
2001: Vic: Essendon v Brisbane
2000: Vic: Essendon v Melbourne

Only three times in 20 years when the host state wouldn't have had a competing team, each of them in SA (2002, 2003, 2005). That's pretty good.

11 in Victoria, 6 in SA, 2 NSW, 2 WA, 0 Queensland.