Opinion MODERATE ideas for a 'fairer' AFL without the hyperbole of VIC & non-VIC trolls. TROLLS FROM BOTH SIDES PLEASE KEEP OUT

[doppleganger]

And that membership entitles them to?

What do most clubs offer?

Access to facilities managed by the club. Tis pretty simple.

 

[p4p1]

I know this is a troll-free thread (as much as any can be), and this isn't meant to be a troll, but I still did several double-takes when I saw which club you supported

I do like father-son picks just because of the romance involved. But happy to see it gone if it means a fairer AFL.

Academies piss me off, especially when the Eagles already essentially bankroll junior footy throughout WA, not just their academy. That's how it should be. All 10 Vic clubs should fund junior footy in a manner linked to the amount they earn. This'll mean the bigger clubs pump more money into it, but so be it. It might already happen this way, I don't actually know, but the point is, scrap academies.

Something does need to be done about Gold Coast though.

I admit I am a fan of F/S but I do believe that the player/kid should also have a say. He either goes into the draft to be picked up by anyone or takes the F/S option.

Academy picks are s**t. Not a fan of those at all, especially not when it involves a potential for a F/S pick or a team in a footy dominated state. I do understand the idea of growing the game in Qld or NSW which IIRC was the original idea behind it to give kids not from the strong footy states a chance.
I don't think the draft age should be raised but I think clubs need to get better at picking guys who just weren't ready at 18 but now at 19-21 have matured physically and are ready. People mature and age differently. Zorko wasn't picked up until he was 21/22 but has gone on to be captain of his team win a few B&Fs, in admittedly a weak team at the time. Maybe the youth competitions need to have the age limit raised to 20/21 instead.

 

[doppleganger]

Indeed, which is why the system is so wrong.

Competing club members are the ones who should have priority access to the Grand Final... you know, thr supporters who follow their club through thick & thin... then mostly miss out seeing their team on Grand Final day which is prioritised for a non-related group of people.

Only in the VAFL...

You mean the MCC members who stump up their fees for what 30-40 years.

It is almost worth having a rotated GF at the GABBA, and Adelaide make it. Then Crow members would only get access to less than 10k tickets.

Then it might actually finally sink in for numbskulls like yourself, that the MCG is the ground that lets the majority of club members get access to a GF.

Hosting it anywhere else will only mean less club members get a chance to go...so I assume you are all for moving it.

 

[p4p1]

Also a proper reserves comp. I understand the financial and logistics issues but the Vic based teams have an advantage of playing in a stronger local league because of the amount of teams affiliated with an AFL team in the VFL. Brisbane's reserves embarrassed the rest of the NEAFL last year, you can't tell me players in the NEAFL are gaining as much from playing in the NEAFL as the guys in the VFL. I would also add that each club nominating a senior player/coach who is the captain of the reserves team and acts as a player/coach kind of thing not included in the players salary cap but can't play in the senior team unless there are X amount of injuries say 10-15 or something massive like that.
Brisbane would gain a lot from having a Hodge in captaining the reserves, Eagles or whoever Sam Mitchell is affiliated with now would gain a lot from having him as a captain for the reserves. Same goes with Ablett Jnr or Murphy etc if they believe they can play at the reserves level and their bodies will hold up.

 

[kranky al]

What do most clubs offer?

Access to facilities managed by the club. Tis pretty simple.

No what matches - what events

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

You mean the MCC members who stump up their fees for what 30-40 years.

It is almost worth having a rotated GF at the GABBA, and Adelaide make it. Then Crow members would only get access to less than 10k tickets.

Then it might actually finally sink in for numbskulls like yourself, that the MCG is the ground that lets the majority of club members get access to a GF.

Hosting it anywhere else will only mean less club members get a chance to go...so I assume you are all for moving it.

It's like you can't read.

I have said the grand final should be attended by members of the competing sides.

Most members already miss attending the grand final due to hangers on. I gather you are one of them.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

This thread is about discussing ideas to fix the problem. There are plenty of of other threads where you can complain about it with no proposed solution.

The usual suspects derailing interesting discussion once again.

The solution is the MCC membership excludes AFL finals & is reduced.

Finals tickets are then sold to competing club members as a priority.

 

[VicBased]

Sorry this is getting a bit long - I've got ADHD and a test at uni on Tuesday that I'm supposed to be studying for. So I'm busy finding any excuse to do ANYTHING else.
I think one thing everyone can agree on regardless of who they support is the AFL looks after the AFLs interests only. If you're cluns align with the AFL's interests then great, if they don't then you're fu**ed.

My take on things as Brisbane supporter living in W.A.

1. 34 game season, if they AFLs plan is to eventually have 20 teams then they should plan to eventually have 38 games. Extra games is achieved by having either a longer season or a quicker turn around between games. To solve travelling issues if a quick turnaround is going to happen then W.A. teams can choose to stay in Vic for a couple of games however long that is, that can also be extended to other teams travelling to victoria. Whether its 2 games over 5 or 6 days or two games over 7-8 days, whatever it is. AFL players need to harden the up, plenty of other athletes spend months away from their families and home. They get paid a lot of money to do, as do the AFL players. A 34 game season would mean better list management and more rotation, which I think adds another aspect to the season in a good way.

2. With a 34 game season maybe more advantages need to be given to a team who finishes on top of the ladder. Personally I'm all for neutral venues in the GF but maybe with a longer season, finishing on top should be held in a higher regard and with that you get some kind of advantage heading into finals that not even #2 gets. I'm not totally sure what that could be. Maybe have a top 9 with #1 finisher getting an extra week off or something. If teams don't think that much time off is an advantage then perhaps something else could be done to emphasise the advantages of finishing on top.

3. With the idea of of a top 9 perhaps during the bye between round 23 and first week of finals #9 and #10 play off for the final spot. I'm not totally sure on this.

4. Either finals are home games or they're neutral. If a team wins a home final then its a home game. It's not fair if a team who's home is at etihad or geelong win a final plays an MCG tenant in their home final at the MCG. If a victorian team is playing someone from another state, at least at the MCG the Victorian team will keep some kind of home advantage.

5. Travelling - This is particularly for W.A. teams, I don't know if the issue is as bad for teams from S.A. Qld, NSW but it's easy to extend it to them. More allowances need to be made for travelling to and from W.A. Chartered flight, simple. Economy class isn't real comfortable for me and I'm 5'8 I cant imagine how s**t house it is for guys over 6ft which is basically everyone now. I would also suggest other things, if the players can do it without having a bitch fit like. When a W.A. team travels to QLD or NSW they stay for 2 rounds and play both teams from that state and visa versa. If the teams prefer it then W.A. teams can spend 4 rounds over east playing both QLD and NSW teams back to back. If Melbourne teams want to sell home games that's fine. But the distance travelled if playing against a team from outside Victoria can't be greater than the distance on a flight to Melbourne. When the eagles play Melbourne in the NT, I think it favours the eagles to do so. Alice isn't as far away on a direct flight as Melbourne is and it takes away a home ground advantage. If both clubs are fine with that, which they likely would be then all good. It's not OK when a W.A. team plays a Vic team in Tassie though unless the W.A. or Interstate team signs off on it. It's about an hour or so extra from W.A. but it also helps get rid of a home ground advantage. So the final say should be with the Away team if the distance travelled is further.

6. Expansion - I think it's fair to say Gold Coast is a bust. Whether its due to management or location or both I'm not totally sure. Though I don't think a team has ever successfully operated out of the GC. Either make it work within the next couple of years or relocate and re-brand using the same or similar list and staff etc after an external investigation to see who within the administration is not worth their position. I think the final two teams need to be out of Tasmania and NT. I know there is difficulties with both. But I believe both states have offered so much to the game over the years they deserve their own representation.

For the N.T. Team I really like the idea of St. Mary's being used somehow. Not only by far the most successful team in the state but the team itself has given plenty of quality to the AFL. The green and Gold colours don't clash with anyone and at least then there is some history there. I've never lived in Darwin, I don't know if it would be a good place to live or not. I know there might be troubles getting players to go there but to alleviate that, as much as I think the draft should be fair I think that maybe they could get first dibs of NT kids or something like that.

The tassie team could just be a step up from the Tassie devils or something like that. Again maybe they could get priority for kids from Tassie. Maybe the system is something similar to I think acedemy picks where the team has to match the bid put in by another team.

One of these teams could tie in with The gold coast relocation, getting their list etc.

That leaves another expansion team going to either the ACT or to W.A. Although the population here might be able to support it I'm not sure how or where a third team could be placed. My guess would be the Northern Suburbs of Perth, in Joondalup or something like that. A Melbourne team could relocate to the ACT if the expansion team doesn't go there. I'm not sure that a 3rd W.A. team is a good idea though. I'm not sure who would be left to support it here.

Maybe another Melbourne team could relocate to Ballarat permanently, IIRC the bulldogs have been playing some home games there and I believe St. Kilda has some strong ties to the area as well. Country Vic IMO is underrepresented anyway and Ballarat seems like the most logical place out of Melbourne to base a team. I then also adds another permanent home ground to Victoria which I think is a good thing.

7. The Grand Final should rotate. With my finishing on top of the ladder Idea maybe the advantage becomes that if your team finishes #1 the GF is in your state no matter what. That deals with the problem of finalising the issues or only a week before. So lets say Geelong finish on top the GF is at KP if they make the GF. If they don't then the GF goes to the MCG. If GWS finishes on top then the GF goes to Spotless if they make it and if they don't it goes to the best statdium in NSW which I hope to god isn't the SCG because I hate the tiny ground. It gives like 5 weeks for the AFL to make all the logistics work. The priority for the GF tickets need to be given to the clubs competing. The country basically stops for the GF so the viewership #s would have to make up for the money lost if there is less spectators at the ground.

8. The AFL needs an independent government funded or government enforced commission to oversee it. The current 'commission' is just an extension of the AFL and only looks out for the AFL's interests. I believe it's shown that it doesn't work and IIRC it was also against a recommendation from the NAFC or whatever they were called at the time.

9. Let the players be people. People make mistakes. People do all sorts of things but often aren't punished by their job if it doesn't affect (effect?) their ability to carry out the job.

10. Year round PED testing maybe at least once a month. Game needs to be clean but also the verdict handed down by the commission needs to be quicker. Drug testing could and should be run by the independent commission.

11. Prime time games need to be decided by positions on the ladder. The season opener is a s**t game and has been for years. Someone earlier on suggested a GF replay as the season opener. I could definitely get on board with that. Much better than the same crap game every year. Anzac day games need to be shared around. Every club/location has some ANZAC history. Maybe the answer is 1 day game and 1 night game shared around between teams.

12. Getting rid of VFL records. The game changed when it went national. AFL records only should count. I would say that player records for players who played in both the VFL and AFL still count. Ie Lockett has still kicked 1360 goals. But there is no reason why Coventry's goal kicking record should be counted but Ken Farmer's isn't. Or that Pratt's 150 goals is better than Naylors 167 goals. Naylors souths played footscrays premiership team and won a game each, the VFL was stronger argument holds no weight at that time IMO.

13. This one is just for me. Brisbane releasing a long sleeve version of the jumper they wore from 92-96.

That's all I can think of for now.

A comprehensive and interesting read. Won't be liked by some though.

 

[Shoei]

Eventually in 10/20 years or so, when the playing/draft pool increases with more kids from NSW and QLD being drafted, I don't think the issue of top many Vic Clubs will be an issue, the main issue/problem is right now is that there is not enough AFL standard players on the 18 AFL teams lists, aside from possibly The Giants, whom have an extraordinary amount of depth.

Also the next port of call of an expansion team should be Wellington (which is actually geographically closer to Melbourne than Perth)

Except that's not going to be the case. There is a decline in youth sport participation across all sporting codes worldwide as the next generation of youngsters choose different options.

20 years ago you couldn't make thousands of dollars a month playing a video game.

>50% of the market is in Vic.
10/18 teams isn't far off.

A far more 'glaring' issue is the lack of teams in WAh, but somehow for all the complaints about travel, this simple solution that would have your teams travel less gets rejected by your clubs and their owner....You'd think they consider the status quo to be a bigger advantage to them than less travel.

So where is this 3rd WA team going to be based?
Who's going to support it?

It's taken the Dockers the best part of 30 years to sort their finances out and even now they are struggling to break even, but hey, let's add another club in to a market that has absolutely no want or need for it because.....ummm......because?

 

[doppleganger]

The solution is the MCC membership excludes AFL finals & is reduced.

Finals tickets are then sold to competing club members as a priority.

Your solution means there is no 100k seat stadium at the G.

The ground wasn’t redeveloped, and Etihad would be the AFL backed venue.

With only 50k capacity crowds, you have just capped competing club members GF access at about 25k compared to 35k it is at the moment.

Nice solution.

 

[Rich01]

The solution is the MCC membership excludes AFL finals & is reduced.

Finals tickets are then sold to competing club members as a priority.

Sounds good.

How exactly do you propose to compensate the $60m in revenue the MCC receives from their members each year as you are taking away a primary benefit of their product? Keeping in mind that the MCC are entitled to this benefit for the next 34 years.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Your solution means there is no 100k seat stadium at the G.

The ground wasn’t redeveloped, and Etihad would be the AFL backed venue.

With only 50k capacity crowds, you have just capped competing club members GF access at about 25k compared to 35k it is at the moment.

Nice solution.

Lol, now you are just making up fluff.

Currently the MCC members are paying peanuts for their deal compared to other members.

I pay more for my combined SACA & Crows memberships & get far less than MCC members.

The vast majority of the Crows 50k members missed out on the 2017 grand finals, despite being played in a 100K stadium. Same occurred when West Coast played too.

It's a rort that most members who support their sides miss out the grand final.

May as well play it in a smaller stadium of the highest ranked team if the MCC members keep their hold on it.

 

[Papa G]

Sounds good.

How exactly do you propose to compensate the $60m in revenue the MCC receives from their members each year as you are taking away a primary benefit of their product? Keeping in mind that the MCC are entitled to this benefit for the next 34 years.

I wonder how many MCC members would give up their memberships because of this? How big is the waiting list?

I still reckon access to 45 AFL games a year plus all cricket for $650 is a bargain and I'm sure plenty others would too.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Sounds good.

How exactly do you propose to compensate the $60m in revenue the MCC receives from their members each year as you are taking away a primary benefit of their product? Keeping in mind that the MCC are entitled to this benefit for the next 34 years.

Split the memberships between cricket & the AFL clubs like other stadiums.

Finals paid for by members who make the finals.

Currently the MCC membership is ridiculously cheap for what they get to watch.

 

[p4p1]

Actually while we are all talking about ideas that will likely never happen. AFL to require all gear is manufactured in Australia regardless of who the kit sponsor is.

 

[Billy ray]

17 game season

if home one year v a team then the following year its Away. No exceptions.

All finals best of three with
home ground advantage all the way to higher ranked teams.
grand final can be one off at mcg

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

17 game season

if home one year v a team then the following year its Away. No exceptions.

All finals best of three with
home ground advantage all the way to higher ranked teams.
grand final can be one off at mcg

Shouldn't the grand final be the one which is the best of 3?

 

[doppleganger]

Lol, now you are just making up fluff.

Currently the MCC members are paying peanuts for their deal compared to other members.

I pay more for my combined SACA & Crows memberships & get far less than MCC members.

The vast majority of the Crows 50k members missed out on the 2017 grand finals, despite being played in a 100K stadium. Same occurred when West Coast played too.

It's a rort that most members who support their sides miss out the grand final.

May as well play it in a smaller stadium of the highest ranked team if the MCC members keep their hold on it.

Adelaide lol

Yeah the SACA has what 25k members, for a reserve of 17k.

MCC has 130k financial members, paying for access to a 22k reserve.

They effectively sell each seat 6 times.

Are you paying 3500 for your Adelaide & SACA membership?

The vast majority of Adelaide members would miss out on GF tickets no matter where the GF was played, playing it at the G maximises the number who get access.

 

[blue harvest]

The solution is the MCC membership excludes AFL finals & is reduced.

Finals tickets are then sold to competing club members as a priority.

But they borrowed hundreds of millions to redevelop the whole Northern side of the ground based on a contract which enables them to have a 22k reserve to use during the year and finals. You can't just renege on the deal. They also paid for a lot of the Southern Stand. Without them we would have a far inferior stadium and even fewer tickets available. People need to understand that the MCC has paid for a lot of the stadium, not like Adelaide Oval redev which was paid by taxpayers.

 

[kranky al]

Your solution means there is no 100k seat stadium at the G.

The ground wasn’t redeveloped, and Etihad would be the AFL backed venue.

With only 50k capacity crowds, you have just capped competing club members GF access at about 25k compared to 35k it is at the moment.

Nice solution.

You keep putting up the melbourne CRICKET club members as if the only thing they buy their CRICKET club membership for is afl.

and refuse to discuss what else that membership gets you.

you also make out like every expansion is just for football

<<<The proposed expansion is almost double the 30,000 approved by members in the six years to August 2005, which was to help fund the major redevelopment of the northern half of the ground in preparation for the 2006 Commonwealth Games>>>

source: https://www.smh.com.au/sport/plan-t...-wait-for-mcc-membership-20141118-11p5j6.html

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

But they borrowed hundreds of millions to redevelop the whole Northern side of the ground based on a contract which enables them to have a 22k reserve to use during the year and finals. You can't just renege on the deal. They also paid for a lot of the Southern Stand. Without them we would have a far inferior stadium and even fewer tickets available. People need to understand that the MCC has paid for a lot of the stadium, not like Adelaide Oval redev which was paid by taxpayers.

Much of Adelaide Oval has been paid for by members, just like much of the MCG has been paid for by the Government.

Deals can be broken & in this case should be... unless we move to best of 3 grand finals, then 1 can be at the MCG.

 

[Rich01]

Split the memberships between cricket & the AFL clubs like other stadiums.

Finals paid for by members who make the finals.

Currently the MCC membership is ridiculously cheap for what they get to watch.

So who’s paying the $60m+ to the MCC? The clubs?

 

[blue harvest]

Lol, now you are just making up fluff.

Currently the MCC members are paying peanuts for their deal compared to other members.

I pay more for my combined SACA & Crows memberships & get far less than MCC members.

The vast majority of the Crows 50k members missed out on the 2017 grand finals, despite being played in a 100K stadium. Same occurred when West Coast played too.

It's a rort that most members who support their sides miss out the grand final.

May as well play it in a smaller stadium of the highest ranked team if the MCC members keep their hold on it.

This has been explained to you already the other day
MCC only pay $600 or $700 but there are 130k of them and only 22k seats. Most of them don't get to go to the GF even though they pay their fees.
Majority of Crows/Eagles members missed out - so did the majority of Tigers and Pies members.
The AFL takes contol of stadiums for finals, the home team doesn't get all the seats like in H&A, play the GF in Adelaide and your members would end up with fewer seats than they get at the G.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

So who’s paying the $60m+ to the MCC? The clubs?

So you are saying no one will take up cricket membership to watch the boxing day test?

Are you also saying no current MCC members would convert to club memberships where they play at the MCG.

Wouldn't make up for all the $60M, but then you can sell finals tickets to the competing club members.

Currently the MCC membership price is a bargain compared to other memberships.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

This has been explained to you already the other day
MCC only pay $600 or $700 but there are 130k of them and only 22k seats. Most of them don't get to go to the GF even though they pay their fees.
Majority of Crows/Eagles members missed out - so did the majority of Tigers and Pies members.
The AFL takes contol of stadiums for finals, the home team doesn't get all the seats like in H&A, play the GF in Adelaide and your members would end up with fewer seats than they get at the G.

... which is wrong.

Gil keeps talking that the AFL is about the fans, so give the grand final back to the fans who are the most deserving to attend, rather than the corporates & other hangers on.