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

[lewdogs]

The Grand Final at the MCG is the most iconic part of football. People really need to give up on it moving because it won't happen.

Other finals should be played on home grounds, definitely.

 

[telsor]

Another way to make things a little fairer. Stop sending non-Victorian clubs to play in Hobart and Launceston.

I mean a few Victorian clubs go down there, I think Carlton and North Melbourne did last year, but majority are still non-Victorian clubs. The games in Launceston and Hobart should be exclusively Victorian to try and even out the travel just a little.

Richmond played down North in Hobart the first year or two and wanted to keep it going.

North and the sponsors put a stop to it, basically because too many locals supported Richmond. North didn't like the hostile crowd and their inability to make new fans, and Hobart council didn't like the stadium filling with locals and thus preventing interstate visitors (who didn't make the trip because they couldn't get a ticket) and the $$$ they bring (which is the reason the pay for it after all).

Sources:
Richmond's attitude is from official comments, although it's always possible that behind the scenes they may have been less keen.
The North stuff is rumour, but not unlikely.
The Hobart council stuff is from their report into the economic effects of the sponsorship.

 

[Colonial]

The Grand Final at the MCG is the most iconic part of football. People really need to give up on it moving because it won't happen.

Other finals should be played on home grounds, definitely.

Would think the actual game is the most iconic part of the sport.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[telsor]

Yup.

The issue becomes which ‘live or die’

To me only way to eliminate clubs from AFL is for Commission to establish key metrics over a set period (say 5 yrs) to determine thems who are ‘in’ and the same who are ‘out’

Without analysing club positions metrics could include things like winning percentages, profits made, average crowds, bank balance - no doubt there are other better metrics that could be used but you get the drift.

A wealthy club like my club (WCE) would be measured over the same period and would start from 0 balance like all others.

Far from perfect but ............... something needs to be done.




Sent from my iPad using BigFooty.com

I agree broadly, but the tricky part is the indirect contributions.

Fewer Vic cubs would mean less AFL members, games at Docklands and MCG 'cumulative crowd bonus' (collectively they provide significant revenue for the AFL that doesn't show up on the club's balance sheet).

You'd also need a club to be a noticable drain before dropping them (not just, failing to make break even), because going by the Fitzroy experience, booting a club means a significant number of their fans just stop following the game.


The other thing people need to keep in mind is that Melbourne/Vic is a LOT bigger than the other markets....Clearly over 50% of the total by most metrics. So Vic having roughly half the clubs *IS* balanced. NSW/QLD are actually the over represented states, but the 'potential audience' and 'grow the game' arguments apply there. WA is underrepresented, but they reject the idea of more clubs...and forcing a new club in with no clear zone over the objections of WAFC and the existing clubs is just asking to fail.....So we effectively have WA's surplus capacity moved to NSW/QLD.

 

[WestCoast05]

The Grand Final at the MCG is the most iconic part of football. People really need to give up on it moving because it won't happen.

Well to you it is. But not to everyone, even some Victorian supporters in this thread are in favour of moving it.

 

[telsor]

Well to you it is. But not to everyone, even some Victorian supporters in this thread are in favour of moving it.

At the end of the day, moving the GF just isn't a practical option and people need to get over it.

To cut and paste from what I just put in another thread...

-----------
One of the major issues with moving the GF is that the second best option is Perth.

Whenever a WA team plays in the GF, we hear at great length how difficult is is for ~15,000 people to get from WA -> Melbourne.

Now just imagine if the GF was in Perth and 50,000 needed to be able to make the trip. (more if no WA team is playing, and given that there is no way the GF venue could be set after the PF, that's fairly likely).

 

[Rusty Brookes]

1. Fixture remains at 17 rounds as per this year.
2. Rotating fixture (H&A) every other year.
3. No team travels to any state more than once. Eg; West Coast play one SA, NSW, QLD team home each year and the other away (with the exception of Victoria for obvious reasons).
4. No team travels to any state less than once.
5. Victoria clubs are split evenly between MCG/Marvel+KP each year so interstate clubs will play at least a couple of games at the MCG.
6. No team travels to a state to play a game if that state/territory does not host an actual team (Tas, NT, ACT) UNLESS there is an approval prior to fixturing by the furtherest travelling side (financial compensation discussions allowed).
7. In finals, highest ranked side is allowed to play at the venue with which they played the majority of their home games during the season (ie. Geelong playing at KP and North at Marvel).
8. The league working towards standardised fields of play to mimic the dimensions of the MCG (if the GF is there perpetually and that is considered the home of football then write the dimensions into legislation of the game).
9. Clubs allowed to spend whatever they wish to travel to/from interstate games.
10. Stagger byes so that two teams miss per week say between rounds 7 to 15.
11. Teams returning from the bye play the following Thursday night.
12. Highest ranked side in the competition is afforded more ballot tickets for the grand final on a ratio of 2:1 to give the club an opportunity to replicate a home stadium support.

1. So a big, big hole in the AFL's TV rights deal. Agree that it makes it fairer but I can't see it happening.

2. No problems with the idea but you're still stuck with less TV money

3. Again, the TV money. No problems with the principle though

4. See above

5. Not adverse to the idea but better deals need to be struck for club members. If only they'd built a 70,000 seat stadium that costs bugger all to run..oh wait.

6. No issue there but I think having games in those states has been good for the code and I'd hate to see it dry up

7. No problems with the idea but club members will get locked out. Imagine Geelong hosting Collingwood - I reckon most clubs would still go with the larger stadium to maximise attendance and gate receipts. I suppose the irony here is the one final Geelong hosted at KP, they got done by the Dockers.

8. Yes. 100% agree. Problem would be existing grounds (say for instance the SCG would have to a serious overhaul but the boat might have sailed. They might have had the opportunity to change the dimensions with the most recent stand build. Of course, the argument could be made as to why should the AFL dictate the size of a multi-purpose stadium).

9. Disagree. If the idea is to make it fairer, everyone spends the same

10. Agree

11. Agree

12. No problems at all with this proposal. With that being said, should a club fail to claim all tickets in the ballot, the remainder should be offered to members of the competing club.

So while a 17 round season is fairer, the issue of money is always going to dictate a 22 round season. I reckon there's definitely merit to a lot of your points here.

 

[telsor]

Another one I just thought of, stop the "special" games being all Victorian affairs, and by that I mean games like the first game of the season, Queens Birthday and ANZAC day game.

Sure.

So long as all clubs get equal access to FTA....

Vic clubs 'need' a disproportionate share of the FTA timeslots as they're the only ones we get on FTA.

Non Vic clubs get all their games on FTA into their home market.


A redistribution between Vic clubs would be understandable. If non Vic clubs want them though, they need to compensate Vic clubs for the $$$ lost.

 

[_Mike_]

IIRC the grand final is locked in for the MCG for a few more decades. This should be borderline criminal, who is making these deals?

The AFL's administration and the MCC. Freedom to contract etc etc. This horse has been flogged to death.

 

[footyfan1978]

The Grand Final at the MCG is the most iconic part of football. People really need to give up on it moving because it won't happen.

Other finals should be played on home grounds, definitely.

I do not believe finals should be played on home grounds. But it is not practical due to geography of Australia and some states only have one AFL suitable ground.
They should be played on best stadium for the sport. That is clearly the MCG.
The fact some clubs get given games at home for finals that helps them advance to grand final is not ideal but as with many things it is a compromise between what is fair and just what works for geography of Australia It works to have early finals in more than one state where two clubs competing are not from same state. I do not think it is fair though that distinct homeground advantage is reward some get that others cannot. But it is what it is and compromised and just accept some clubs have an easier path to reach grand final.

 

[Lsta062]

I’m glad to see a West Coast supporter admitting some of the things in the OP. It’s inviting a balanced discussion and makes Victorians see the other side of this discussion rather than the OP starting with the usual biased commentary followed by Vic-biased counter-arguments. Vice versa too.

Wonder how long a balanced discussion around this topic will last.

 

[Elmer_Judd]

Another way to make things a little fairer. Stop sending non-Victorian clubs to play in Hobart and Launceston.

I mean a few Victorian clubs go down there, I think Carlton and North Melbourne did last year, but majority are still non-Victorian clubs. The games in Launceston and Hobart should be exclusively Victorian to try and even out the travel just a little.

Agree with that, and part of the (rightful) grizzling from interstate club's is that they do not get to play at the MCG enough throughout the season (which is pivotal for teams who are contenders like the Eagles) and tend to get shunted to play games in locations like Tassie and Alice Springs for Vic Clubs revenue raising.

 

[telsor]

1 The next season's prime time allocations should be based solely on the ladder position of the club in the preceding season - this one doesn't even effect West Coast as we have effectively monopolised a State. But the current allocation is completely unfair to smaller Melbourne clubs, they should be given a chance to grow and promote their brand too. However let them earn it through on field success. Same with every club.

The big difference here is that non Vic clubs get all their games on FTA (n their home markets anyway). If Vic clubs don't get the 'good' timeslots, then they're Pay TV only.

Redistributing between Vic clubs, sure, but Vic clubs losing these slots to non Vic clubs is a major hit to revenue.

2 The travel burden of WA teams (and other non-Vic teams to a lesser extent) for the most part CAN'T BE HELPED and it is time some WA supporters realised that. It's just unfortunately a matter of geography.
BUT I'm not sure how many of you know this - it is the AFL that stops WA clubs from chartering flights. And even in not being able to charter flights many players have to fly economy (think about how large some of these players are who have just run themselves ragged). Surely this is one area the AFL can budge on. I'm not even against WAFC paying the excess cost of what the AFL currently pays for the flights.

WA clubs get additional Business class seats (I think it's 4 more than all other clubs) already, and the way the AFL seems entrenched on the issue, I'm guessing the contract with Virgin is worth some serious coin. Unless the WA clubs want to compensate the league for the entire contract loss, I doubt this will fly (so to speak).

3 Balanced journalism in the NATIONAL AFL media (but obviously there should be no qualms about Victorian state media focusing or even blindly spruicking their own clubs, each state media does this).
No more Club Presidents etc allowed to help script the media narrative - this is ridiculously unprofessional. Unless you are going to equally allow every club president the ability to do so.
Let's face it, our MRP/Tribunal often works by trial of public opinion/media witchhunt - and having media insiders who can help to get a certain narrative going is an advantage to certain teams. Not just for their own team but for the rubbing out of players of opposing teams.
The NATIONAL media ticks me off more than the FIXture (next point) - the fixture is as it is due to $$$ largely (which is still not a good enough reason over fairness of competition), but the NATIONAL AFL media is stuffed because it is an old boys club. It really is a club. Robbo and Whately have to go, they are as one-eyed for their respective clubs as you can get.

Balanced according to whom?

Also, what 'Vic media' would be exempted from the 'national' banner?

4 The FIXture needs work. In a game where ladder position is often a matter of the smallest of percentages it is no wonder many use the term 'FIXture'.
A good starter would be travel to Tassie and NT shared equally amongst every club. Same as playing Geelong in Geelong. Sydney at the SCG etc
Also each club should literally take it in turn from one season to the next to play either home or away against every other club EG if Collingwood played the Crows in Vic one year then they travel to SA to play them next year.

$$$

It's imperfect, but again, if North hosts Collingwood rather than Freo at Hobart, it would cost them a LOT of money.

5 I dont even want to muddy the discussion with the Grand Final debate as the sheer size of the MCG is DAMN impressive for the Grand Final - however I will add that a suitable compromise would be for the AFL to set an 80k minimum standard for stadiums to host the GF. Then it will be up to the states to put their money where their mouth is.

Stadium size is definitely a factor, but it's not the only factor. Related factor is $$$, but also just the practicality of using the venue (as noted elsewhere, getting the numbers required to Perth would be near impossible).

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

I can't believe we've had a decent conversation on this topic.

No one argues against the right of the higher ranked team being able to play finals at their home ground, but as we all know this wasn't always the case. As an optimist at heart, I hope a club being able to play 7 weeks in a row at their home ground (at any time of the year, let alone in the lead up to the finals!), and Grand Finals played at the lower ranked team's home ground is considered just as crazy as "hosting" a semi final on the other side of the country against a lower-ranked team who lost the week before.

17 round seasons is probably the best start I can think of the AFL implementing.

 

[Kappa]

Start with the basics:

1. 17 game season - reverse H&A each year
2. Financial equalisation needs to be moderated to reward success and hard work. If not State Govt contributions etc need to be pulled into the Cap.
3. Most of the others stuff is C grade journalism - there is planty across the full media landscape so we just put up with it.

As an aside I would ban gambling revenue and pokies but that a differnt agenda

You want to have afl only 17 of 52 weeks? What a ridiculously short season.

 

[JohnZ]

So we have a 22 round season. As fair as it would be to reduce that to 17, the league isn't going to give up those 5 games at the revenue associated. For me the discussion becomes how do we make a 22 round season fair? A 22 round season means 12 clubs. Now 12 clubs means 6 being cut which I don't see the league doing either because it's no different to cutting 5 rounds, instead you've cut 3 games from each week.

So what if we flipped it. 2 divisions of 12 teams each. Play a full H+A, so every team plays at home 11 games (wherever in the world they CHOSE for it to be, not where the AFL WANTS it to be), but also, every team plays each other both at home and away. No bias. Now how do we get to 24 teams, we need to add 6: Hobart, Launceston, Canberra, WA3, NT and Auckland. So now we have 9 teams in Melbourne, 1 team in Geelong and 14 teams interstate, so the travel for VIC teams starts to increase.

The divisions are set just like the EPL, bottom 4 get relegated, top 4 get promoted each season. Each division would have it's own finals system. Div 1 would play over 4 weeks as a top 5. Div 2 would play over 3 weeks as a top 4. This would give each division a GF saturday that would be standalone (the Div 1 prelim in week 3 would be friday night).

 

[Twoslabs]

Okay Grand Final wise, a home Grand Final is not practical as the venue would not be decided until the week beforehand. That would make travel, accommodation and venue staffing/catering a logistical nightmare with seven days notice.

What we could do is alternate e.g. MCG in 2020, Adelaide 2021, Perth 2022 etc. All clubs would know where they could eventually be and plan accordingly.

If a tenant club makes the GF well good luck to them. Happened in the champions league in 2012 where Bayern made the final scheduled at their ground, whilst having the advantage Chelsea lifted the trophy.

 

[RUNVS]

Okay Grand Final wise, a home Grand Final is not practical as the venue would not be decided until the week beforehand. That would make travel, accommodation and venue staffing/catering a logistical nightmare with seven days notice.

What we could do is alternate e.g. MCG in 2020, Adelaide 2021, Perth 2022 etc. All clubs would know where they could eventually be and plan accordingly.

If a tenant club makes the GF well good luck to them. Happened in the champions league in 2012 where Bayern made the final scheduled at their ground, whilst having the advantage Chelsea lifted the trophy.

Not that I am against your idea, as it could easily work and would be much better than our current system but deciding the Grand Final venue the week before is something that could work as it happens in the finals all the time.

 

[Twoslabs]

Not that I am against your idea, as it could easily work and would be much better than our current system but deciding the Grand Final venue the week before is something that could work as it happens in the finals all the time.

Grand Finals are different though, with a home final e.g. at the SCG it's going to be majority swans with a few visiting supporters, If for example Sydney got to host a home Grand Final at a 40K stadium there would be potentially be a competing club allocation of 5K each then 30K for the AFL to divvy up. Excluding GWS that would mean 35K travel interstate with a weeks notice.

Could airlines shedule the flights to transport that many, would the accommodation be available? With my thought airlines could have the flights scheduled, hotels could pre book as to be honest with smaller capacity grounds 80%+ are going to be corporate packages anyway

 

[Thetrader15]

At the end of the day, moving the GF just isn't a practical option and people need to get over it.

To cut and paste from what I just put in another thread...

-----------
One of the major issues with moving the GF is that the second best option is Perth.

Whenever a WA team plays in the GF, we hear at great length how difficult is is for ~15,000 people to get from WA -> Melbourne.

Now just imagine if the GF was in Perth and 50,000 needed to be able to make the trip. (more if no WA team is playing, and given that there is no way the GF venue could be set after the PF, that's fairly likely).

If only there was another sport in the world who managed to change the location of their GF each year.

No, why would 50,000 people need to make the trip across? The Vic teams would get the same access as the non-Vic teams get to the MCG. It's done on a membership basis, so if the Dogs played, there would only be 5,000 moving across.

 

[Papa G]

Grand Finals are different though, with a home final e.g. at the SCG it's going to be majority swans with a few visiting supporters, If for example Sydney got to host a home Grand Final at a 40K stadium there would be potentially be a competing club allocation of 5K each then 30K for the AFL to divvy up. Excluding GWS that would mean 35K travel interstate with a weeks notice.

Could airlines shedule the flights to transport that many, would the accommodation be available? With my thought airlines could have the flights scheduled, hotels could pre book as to be honest with smaller capacity grounds 80%+ are going to be corporate packages anyway

If 2 "interstate" teams (yeah its been a while) play off in the Grand Final what do you think happens or has happened then? How does Melbourne cope?

 

[Twoslabs]

If 2 "interstate" teams (yeah its been a while) play off in the Grand Final what do you think happens or has happened then? How does Melbourne cope?

Exactly the same as before as it's known in advance that the GF is here that allows the planning for travel/hotels. Even at the MCG the vast majority of seats go to AFL/MCC and corporate packages meaning it's irrelevant if two interstate teams play as their supporters will not be allocated tickets in large enough numbers to cause a problem.

The other "advantage" is that as a city of 4 million it would be fair to assume that Melbourne has considerably more hotel capacity available at short notice with probably the exception of Sydney

If for example Adelaide Oval hosted next year in a post coronavirus world and knowing that 35-40K would be corporates anyway that travel accommodation would be prebooked. Even if Adelaide played Port in said match the amount of members of the clubs attending would be tiny.

Personally I prefer the idea of a "neutral" venue for a GF where its laid on years in advance. If a home team happens to make it then that's the luck of the draw.

 

[jono23]

Interesting post from the OP about not having hyperbolic statements like "interstate clubs saved the VFL" - that's not hyperbolic, that's reality.

Anyway, ways to equalise:

1. Grand Final is rotated among the states. Vic gets the GF 10 out of every 18, WA/SA 2 out of 18 (I understand Optus and AO can be expanded to 70k), NSW 2 out of 18 (if Stadium Australia is still operational for AFL), and QLD 2 out of 18 (if they get a new 70k seat stadium for a potential olympics in 2032). If the latter 2 states' issues aren't resolved, then vic is 10 out of 14 years, WA/SA 2 out of 14 years. Extend out the 2057 contract. Corrupt Dictator Dan can be bought on this issue. Needs to be rotational rather than home ground advantage as the logistics are too difficult on the week of the game. Doesn't matter if not 100k stadium since MCC members get 23k tickets allocated anyway - they can * off. 70k stadium should be minimum.

2A. The optimal amount is 22 clubs. Someone said 24 clubs so 2 divisions of 12 on a promotion/relegation basis, but national sponsors wouldn't give a sh!t about the lower division and you'd create a greater divide. A 22 club season would work by doubling up against 7 other teams on a 3 year rotational basis. 28 H&A games would be offset by scrapping pre-season games and reducing pre-season training length (which I believe would also improve the aesthetics on field). This is more advantageous from a money sense than 16 (15 plus 5 double ups on a 3 year rotational basis). 20 clubs could also work, 19 games plus an extra rivalry round. 2 extra H&A games a year from the present, but perceived inequality with a sh!t rival (e.g. Brisbane getting 2 games a year against Gold Coast). So we need to work towards a 22 club competition over the next 20 years.

2B. In the meantime with 18 clubs, we should look at a 17-5 model. 17 home and away games, week bye. In that week bye, you fixture the remaining 5 games. Either 1-6, 7-12, 13-18 to play for top 4, top 8, more entries in a draft ballot, respectively; or 1,4,7,10,13,16 | 2,5,8,11,14,17 | 3,6,9,12,15,18 and continue the ladder. Potentially takes out local derbies which is a financial problem, unless you went 18-5 fixture.

3. Thursday night games every week. Each club gets Thursday/Friday night representation. Should be based on prior year ladder position. Gold Coast/Melbourne only gets one, top 4 gets the most (8). This rewards performance, not the bigger Melbourne clubs.

4. No travelling on a 5 day break.

5. Should be able to charter flights to and from Perth.

6. Umpires must be from neutral states and de-centralise the umpiring department. This actually should be point number 1. The standard of umpiring is disgusting.

7A. List sizes reduced to 35. This is an equalisation measure as the gap in standard between each additional player grows the further down the list you go and it's a more efficient use of club resources. Smaller lists means less depth tested. This works with a reduced soft cap - in some ways, this is probably the cost cutting catalyst the AFL needed. This also mitigates somewhat any dilusion of talent with expanding to 22 teams over the long term. Mid season draft introduced to mitigate issues with having 14 injured players.

7B. Victorian sides are aligned with a 10 team standalone VFL comp (i.e. no AFL named teams in the VFL - Geelong being the exception). Non-playing AFL players play for their aligned side. Need to work-out how to generate more money into the VFL. SA/WA non-playing listed players are disbursed among the state league teams (e.g. Port gets Port, Centrals, WWT, North Adelaide, Crows get South Adelaide, Norwood, Glenelg, Sturt, share West Adelaide). NSW and QLD players disbursed among city sides in a re-worked NEAFL competition.

8. VFL premierships are disregarded. Only premierships from 1990 onwards are counted towards AFL Premierships. Congrats Hawthorn fans, you're atop the premiership ladder.

Ideally, I'd love to suggest each team plays the same number of home state games in a H&A fixture because that would be fair, but I think that's almost impossible taking into account financial issues and clubs playing home games in TAS/NT.

 

[Gak Attack]

The media whining is the funniest one to me. Not saying it doesn't exist but it's a pointless complaint and compared to other sporting comps AFL media is pretty good. American sports and European leagues often give 95% coverage to 4 teams. NBA give one player more coverage than pretty much all the teams for example. Things coild be a lot worse.

 

[Papa G]

Exactly the same as before as it's known in advance that the GF is here that allows the planning for travel/hotels. Even at the MCG the vast majority of seats go to AFL/MCC and corporate packages meaning it's irrelevant if two interstate teams play as their supporters will not be allocated tickets in large enough numbers to cause a problem.

The other "advantage" is that as a city of 4 million it would be fair to assume that Melbourne has considerably more hotel capacity available at short notice with probably the exception of Sydney

If for example Adelaide Oval hosted next year in a post coronavirus world and knowing that 35-40K would be corporates anyway that travel accommodation would be prebooked. Even if Adelaide played Port in said match the amount of members of the clubs attending would be tiny.

Personally I prefer the idea of a "neutral" venue for a GF where its laid on years in advance. If a home team happens to make it then that's the luck of the draw.

It's not corporates that fill the MCG on Grand Final Day. This is a misnomer continually perpetuated. Half the ground is actually filled by the freeloading MCC members, AFL members and Medallion Club.

Footy's biggest day: how the tickets are allocated

Not all memberships will guarantee you a ticket to the AFL grand final. Here's how the seats are allocated.

www.smh.com.au

If the GF was played at another ground this issue would largely be eliminated.