Opinion Non-Crows AFL 9

[Eagleboy2011]

The AFL MRO would have fun with some of those hits.

 

[Eagleboy2011]

Not yet

Brisbane chokers.

 

[Tas]

We didn't lose to Richmond because of some fairy tale the AFL concocted to get Richmond a flag.


The main reason we lost was Richmond taking away our main weapon, the forward line. Rance and Houli killed us.

Once that dried up, our midfield was not the quality of Richmond. Our guys put up pretty midfield stats. But no hurt factor like Dusty.

Richmond were better than us.


And yes, their home ground. We know that. And with 10 sides out of 18 in Victoria, it is likely any GF opponent will be Victorian. It is the make up of the league.

On SM-A325F using BigFooty.com mobile app

I don't think the number of sides has or should have anything to do with it, the agreement with the MCC in order to redevelop the MCG was for the grand final and certain number of finals to be played there for the next 50 years when it was the VFL, given the MCC mostly funding it without any federal government assistance.

The bigger issue is that agreement has been modified at least two times in the past to allow finals access to non-victorian teams at the expense of extending the duration of the deal and guaranteed games/audience levels which leads to compromised schedules.

The last deal was in 2018 and extends this deal to 2057, I'll probably be dead before this deal expires because it keeps getting pushed back. I am not sure interstate clubs could have got the numbers to veto that decision, but I don't recall there being much pushback to this deal getting pushed back further.

If the AFL wanted to, I am sure they could guarantee games and audiences for significantly longer period in exchange for being able to move the grand final to the highest place team's home state. I'm not sure how much money the GF makes for them, but I am sure they could offset it. If the MCC has a hardon about the grand final then there is nothing much they can do about... however, they should under no circumstance keep extending the duration of forced grand finals at the MCG. It just isn't fair for the team that finishes higher.

 

[Crow till I die]

They are on fire

Not now they aren't..they choked

 

[Eagleboy2011]

Not now they aren't..they choked

Brisbane is going to be a fun town to be in next week.

 

[cleanhands]

Not now they aren't..they choked

I did call it wasn’t over

 

[PeterSalt]

I don't think the number of sides has or should have anything to do with it, the agreement with the MCC in order to redevelop the MCG was for the grand final and certain number of finals to be played there for the next 50 years when it was the VFL, given the MCC mostly funding it without any federal government assistance.

The bigger issue is that agreement has been modified at least two times in the past to allow finals access to non-victorian teams at the expense of extending the duration of the deal and guaranteed games/audience levels which leads to compromised schedules.

The last deal was in 2018 and extends this deal to 2057, I'll probably be dead before this deal expires because it keeps getting pushed back. I am not sure interstate clubs could have got the numbers to veto that decision, but I don't recall there being much pushback to this deal getting pushed back further.

If the AFL wanted to, I am sure they could guarantee games and audiences for significantly longer period in exchange for being able to move the grand final to the highest place team's home state. I'm not sure how much money the GF makes for them, but I am sure they could offset it. If the MCC has a hardon about the grand final then there is nothing much they can do about... however, they should under no circumstance keep extending the duration of forced grand finals at the MCG. It just isn't fair for the team that finishes higher.

From memory that's because they did the deal and told everyone about it afterwards - I think Eddie Maguire was deeply involved in that 1

 

[Tas]

From memory that's because they did the deal and told everyone about it afterwards - I think Eddie Maguire was deeply involved in that 1

I don't really know what they thought or why, but in the interest of fairness, the deal should never be extended to guarantee grand finals in Melbourne imo.

 

[PeterSalt]

I don't really know what they thought or why, but in the interest of fairness, the deal should never be extended to guarantee grand finals in Melbourne imo.

I think it also involved Dan Andrews and a guarantee of redevelopment funding

 

[Tas]

I think it also involved Dan Andrews and a guarantee of redevelopment funding

Yeah, it did, from memory it would redevelop one stand, I think the MCC makes more than enough money from AFL to self-fund the stadium itself, half the money from that deal I believe is making cosmetic changes to Docklands as well.

I think these type of deals can get done without locking in grand finals. I don't think anyone that has a genuine desire for a fair competition thinks it is a good idea to lock in the grand finals in one state. Granted the original contract was before it was the AFL, but we should do better to ensure we do no not keep extending the duration and the grand finals that end up at the MCG can be appreciated even more by those who attend.

 

[PeterSalt]

Yeah, it did, from memory it would redevelop one stand, I think the MCC makes more than enough money from AFL to self-fund the stadium itself, half the money from that deal I believe is making cosmetic changes to Docklands as well.

I think these type of deals can get done without locking in grand finals. I don't think anyone that has a genuine desire for a fair competition thinks it is a good idea to lock in the grand finals in one state. Granted the original contract was before it was the AFL, but we should do better to ensure we do no not keep extending the duration and the grand finals that end up at the MCG can be appreciated even more by those who attend.

I still find it hard to believe they're thought it was a good idea going ahead with that deal without any wider consultation

On the other hand, it aligns pretty well with the contempt Victoria has for the other states

Reading the boards of other interstate clubs, it becoming clear a lot of interstate fans are becoming more and more disillusioned

 

[Tas]

I still find it hard to believe they're thought it was a good idea going ahead with that deal without any wider consultation

On the other hand, it aligns pretty well with the contempt Victoria has for the other states

Reading the boards of other interstate clubs, it becoming clear a lot of interstate fans are becoming more and more disillusioned

I doubt this deal would have been agreed to without it being presented to the presidents, this gives the clubs the opportunity to veto any AFL decision although it is rare for a decision to be vetoed.

I think it is important to get the licenses back into the hands of each club and have mandatory member elections for clubs so that members can choose their board and president/chairman. I think the WAFL and SANFL will agree to pretty much anything the AFL wants as long as it maintains the status quo, because the current status quo is good for business.

I don't know if it would change any decisions made but it seems some being made go against the interests of a lot of clubs and as far as I am aware the AFL holds the licences for Swans, GWS and GC, these need to go to their respective clubs imo. AFL prevented the Swans voting against GWS entering the competition because they held the license and not the Swans. You need 3/4 votes to veto the AFL so it isn't an easy thing to get those votes at the best of times, near on impossible with the AFL holding 3 of those votes.

 

[PeterSalt]

I doubt this deal would have been agreed to without it being presented to the presidents, this gives the clubs the opportunity to veto any AFL decision although it is rare for a decision to be vetoed.

I think it is important to get the licenses back into the hands of each club and have mandatory member elections for clubs so that members can choose their board and president/chairman. I think the WAFL and SANFL will agree to pretty much anything the AFL wants as long as it maintains the status quo, because the current status quo is good for business.

I don't know if it would change any decisions made but it seems some being made go against the interests of a lot of clubs and as far as I am aware the AFL holds the licences for Swans, GWS and GC, these need to go to their respective clubs imo. AFL prevented the Swans voting against GWS entering the competition because they held the license and not the Swans. You need 3/4 votes to veto the AFL so it isn't an easy thing to get those votes at the best of times, near on impossible with the AFL holding 3 of those votes.

My memory is that none of the clubs knew, apart from Collingwood, because Eddie.

The WA clubs licenses are still owned by the WA Football Commission (WAFL)

Both Adelaide clubs are controlled by the AFL. The SANFL sold the licenses to the clubs in deal brokered and funded by the AFL at the same time as the clubs moved to Adelaide Oval

We're due to get control back in 2028. Port has no timeline.

Sydney is still AFL controlled. A Sydney member/poster recently posted that he brought up it up at an AGM (in the last couple of years) and the response was 'why bother, everything's working ok atm'

 

[feenix67]

One big change made after that was the ramping up of the TAC Cup system and quality of Victorian draftees.


Something we should replicate here. A separate league devoted to u/18s.


But the SANFL is held in too high a regard to be altered to the extent that the emphasis becomes in developing kids over winning SANFL flags.

On SM-A325F using BigFooty.com mobile app

I've been banging on about this for ages. The SANFL is not equipped or motivated enough to build an AFL player ready junior system.

 

[PeterSalt]

I've been banging on about this for ages. The DANFL is not equipped or motivated enough to build an AFL player ready junior system.

Nor do they get the funding

 

[Samcro24]

Can't remember that day but during the season Keating fractured his pelvis if I remember correctly

Blight thought he was being soft and sent him back on. The doc said it was just a corkie and gave him an injection.

Collapsed though and couldn't go back on.

Came back from that injury but said that it ruined his career

Was said to be like a car accident.

He wasn’t seen at afl level again.

 

[jackster83]

Nor do they get the funding

They also heavily reduced their funding for junior development during Covid. Probably one of the reasons the 2022 and '23 SA draft classes are so poor.

 

[1970crow]

I don't think the number of sides has or should have anything to do with it, the agreement with the MCC in order to redevelop the MCG was for the grand final and certain number of finals to be played there for the next 50 years when it was the VFL, given the MCC mostly funding it without any federal government assistance.

The bigger issue is that agreement has been modified at least two times in the past to allow finals access to non-victorian teams at the expense of extending the duration of the deal and guaranteed games/audience levels which leads to compromised schedules.

The last deal was in 2018 and extends this deal to 2057, I'll probably be dead before this deal expires because it keeps getting pushed back. I am not sure interstate clubs could have got the numbers to veto that decision, but I don't recall there being much pushback to this deal getting pushed back further.

If the AFL wanted to, I am sure they could guarantee games and audiences for significantly longer period in exchange for being able to move the grand final to the highest place team's home state. I'm not sure how much money the GF makes for them, but I am sure they could offset it. If the MCC has a hardon about the grand final then there is nothing much they can do about... however, they should under no circumstance keep extending the duration of forced grand finals at the MCG. It just isn't fair for the team that finishes higher.

Was there even a trade-off with the 2018 extension? It seemed to come out of nowhere.

 

[1970crow]

I doubt this deal would have been agreed to without it being presented to the presidents, this gives the clubs the opportunity to veto any AFL decision although it is rare for a decision to be vetoed.

I think it is important to get the licenses back into the hands of each club and have mandatory member elections for clubs so that members can choose their board and president/chairman. I think the WAFL and SANFL will agree to pretty much anything the AFL wants as long as it maintains the status quo, because the current status quo is good for business.

I don't know if it would change any decisions made but it seems some being made go against the interests of a lot of clubs and as far as I am aware the AFL holds the licences for Swans, GWS and GC, these need to go to their respective clubs imo. AFL prevented the Swans voting against GWS entering the competition because they held the license and not the Swans. You need 3/4 votes to veto the AFL so it isn't an easy thing to get those votes at the best of times, near on impossible with the AFL holding 3 of those votes.

I don’t think clubs can veto decisions, but 3/4 can veto commission appointments. With AFL having centralised enormous amounts of revenue and keeping member elect clubs on financial life support and either running or holding board appointment veto rights for another handful of clubs themselves, there’s no hope of a contrary movement gathering steam.

Not sure when it happened, but an elite self appointing few stole the game from the people and there’s no hope that they could ever be held to account.

 

[BACCS]

Having dominant Geelong, Hawthorn and Richmond sides in that period probably has contributed to that somewhat. The only years where we really should've/could've had non-Vic GFs were this year (Giants losing by a point), 2020 (Port and Brisbane both ****ed up home prelims), 2016 (Giants losing by 6 to the Dogs) and 2012 (umpires).

The bigger concern is that out of the 11 Vic vs non-Vic is that only two non-Vic teams have won (2012 and 2018) and both decided in the final moments of the game. We had five consecutive years from 2014-18 were the non-Vic team finished higher but lost the right to host the home GF with the Eagles in '18 being the only team to win.

The whole "if you're good enough to win anywhere, you'll win" really doesn't fly. It shouldn't even be the case that the higher-ranked team has a disadvantage to begin with.

Freo ****ed up a home prelim in 2015 as well when they should’ve played the Eagles in the GF. There isn’t some conspiracy here, a lot of golden opportunities have been blown by non-Vic teams in prelims and the GF.

 

[BACCS]

Anyone watching the NRL GF. The call just on half time is how a video review should happen. If the rugby people can work out something like this call, then how did the AFL fail us against Sydney on a clearer call..

As good a game as the AFL GF! Footy fans have been treated this past weekend (unfortunately, Brisbane people probably aren’t thinking the same!)

 

[TubbsFarquhar]

Freo ****ed up a home prelim in 2015 as well when they should’ve played the Eagles in the GF. There isn’t some conspiracy here, a lot of golden opportunities have been blown by non-Vic teams in prelims and the GF.

Forgot about that.

I guess there was GWS in 2017 as well who were close to Richmond for a half before being blown away.

 

[Redline]

Alot of talk about the Collingwood role players and bringing in Hill, Mcstay, Frampton and Mitchell.

They need alot of credit for that but for me it's still about your best players. Collingwood don't win a premiership without Daicos, Geelong without Dangerfield, Melbourne without Pettacca, Richmond without Martin.

For me it's still all about the elite talent. Not a Big Footy definition of elite but a top half a dozen player in the comp.

 

[Geoffa32]

There's no victorian bias, it's just the entire structure of the league is biased towards victorians. Got it.

No real bias towards one team. I don't believe in the mythical fairy tale chosen team each year.

But yes this league is biased towards the Victorian teams. Heavily.


We joined their league, expanded VFL.


Victorians hijacked the sport, created the elite level for the sport by expanding their VFL.

It will never change.

On SM-A325F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Alot of talk about the Collingwood role players and bringing in Hill, Mcstay, Frampton and Mitchell.

They need alot of credit for that but for me it's still about your best players. Collingwood don't win a premiership without Daicos, Geelong without Dangerfield, Melbourne without Pettacca, Richmond without Martin.

For me it's still all about the elite talent. Not a Big Footy definition of elite but a top half a dozen player in the comp.

Pies traded our a big contract with Grundy, to allow them to trade in more depth.

... but yes we need to find another gun midfielder.