North want to play 2 home games in WA next season

Remove this Banner Ad

The sad thing is these clubs were gifted a spot (and the status) in a national competition without any valid claim other than being in the right place at the right time. Much more successful clubs have been relegated to playing against "reserves teams" (e.g Norwood, East Fremantle, Sturt, South Fremantle, North Adelaide, etc)

Everytime the idea is floated to have a 3rd SA club, possibly an existing SANFL club, in the league it's shouted down by South Australians.
Can yas make up ya minds 🤷‍♂️
 
Its a dumb move.

Eddie came up with the solution on travel equality and it did not involve an extra home game for the WA teams. The teams spend 6 days away and play two away games in a row. Then two Vic teams do the same, head West and play the Eagles and Freo away 6 days apart.

Do that twice and you cut two flights / trips per season. No-one gets extra home games, just less travel. Not hard and great for tourism.

But with Gather Round the AFL has even further eroded the fixturing inequalities that now to fix that it needs to do things like this.
100%.

Double away games is a great idea.

Fremantle played Carlton and Port in Adelaide back to back.

If the Dockers played 5 games in Melbourne that could be done in 3
They've tried this in the past, with limited success. Players don't want to spend a week living in hotels - esepcially if they have families.
Seriously AFL players are soft. A lot of high paying includes travelling regularly. Cricketers spend months away and Footballers can’t live in hotel for a week.
 
Everytime the idea is floated to have a 3rd SA club, possibly an existing SANFL club, in the league it's shouted down by South Australians.
Can yas make up ya minds 🤷‍♂️
I think the argument there is that when the national comp was first formed a few less VIC teams in favour of some of the big SA and WA clubs would've been ideal, building off their success and creating a proper national comp was a "best of the best" competition.

Now that those clubs are 30+ years removed from being relevant it would no longer make sense. In the same way that it wouldn't really make any sense to put in a VFL club now.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Don Pyke gad this floated to him (by me) and seemed positive about the possibility of say...

1 big Wildcats style road trip play Bris, Syd, Melb, Adelaide then have a block of 5 or 6 at home.

Less travel back n forth etc

Cant see it TBH... 1-2 weeks Max

Sent from my SM-S908E using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Don Pyke gad this floated to him (by me) and seemed positive about the possibility of say...

1 big Wildcats style road trip play Bris, Syd, Melb, Adelaide then have a block of 5 or 6 at home.

Less travel back n forth etc

Cant see it TBH... 1-2 weeks Max

Sent from my SM-S908E using BigFooty.com mobile app
Freo's done it after Gather Rounds and it hasn't done a ****in thing.

Players don't want a month away from home for plenty of reasons.
 
I think the argument there is that when the national comp was first formed a few less VIC teams in favour of some of the big SA and WA clubs would've been ideal, building off their success and creating a proper national comp was a "best of the best" competition.

Now that those clubs are 30+ years removed from being relevant it would no longer make sense. In the same way that it wouldn't really make any sense to put in a VFL club now.
There was a real opportunity to make the new national competition country wide and elite.

In WA, you would have got 2 teams from the start. Let’s say Fremantle and Perth. Four clubs align with each team ie Perth, West Perth, East Perth and Subiaco forming a Perth team. South and East Fremantle, Swans and Claremont.

Both teams with about the same amount of fans and resources.

SA could have Port and Adelaide straight off the bat.

Swans already existed.

7 Victorian Clubs invited to the new competition.

12 team competition with only the Swans needing financial support.

Maybe, you have added Tasmania and Brisbane with the 4 VFL clubs offered the opportunity to relocate.

People can say it would destroy Victorian traditions but WA and SA had their leagues reduced in importance.
 
I think the argument there is that when the national comp was first formed a few less VIC teams in favour of some of the big SA and WA clubs would've been ideal, building off their success and creating a proper national comp was a "best of the best" competition.

Now that those clubs are 30+ years removed from being relevant it would no longer make sense. In the same way that it wouldn't really make any sense to put in a VFL club now.

I get that, but in real terms, would it have been a best of the best state league clubs, or would it have been an A-league style comp with new composite clubs? and consider this-

Port- biggest club out of any SANFL or WAFL clubs, been an AFL team in a two team state for 27 years, been a top 4 lock four out of the last five years, acquired a number 1 draft pick and one of the most talked about players of recent times while still near the top of the ladder: $16 mil in variable funding last year
North- already one of the smallest clubs in a 10 team state, done bugger all for a quarter of a century, in the last 5 years the most horrendous onfield period, at any level, in the clubs 155 year history, and in fact statistically fielding one of the worst teams seen in the history of Australian rules football: $18-19mil in variable funding

So honestly how do we think a Norwood or an East Perth(let alone smaller clubs) would fair if they were in some kind of hypothetical superleague over smaller Vic teams? seems like this dream league would be exactly the same as what we have now with different names and faces (i.e you could have an even number of teams from each footy state, we know damn well the league is still choosing to have its grand final in a 100k stadium over a 50k stadium)
 
There was a real opportunity to make the new national competition country wide and elite.

In WA, you would have got 2 teams from the start. Let’s say Fremantle and Perth. Four clubs align with each team ie Perth, West Perth, East Perth and Subiaco forming a Perth team. South and East Fremantle, Swans and Claremont.

Both teams with about the same amount of fans and resources.

SA could have Port and Adelaide straight off the bat.

Swans already existed.

7 Victorian Clubs invited to the new competition.

12 team competition with only the Swans needing financial support.

Maybe, you have added Tasmania and Brisbane with the 4 VFL clubs offered the opportunity to relocate.

People can say it would destroy Victorian traditions but WA and SA had their leagues reduced in importance.

But you have done this yourself by, even in a fantasy scenario, opted for composite teams instead of real clubs with tradition and history. Thats very strange and a bit contradictory to me 🤷‍♂️
 
Freo's done it after Gather Rounds and it hasn't done a ****in thing.

Players don't want a month away from home for plenty of reasons.
true but it sort of worked... they prob should've beaten both Carlton and Port at AO those 2 weeks.

The week after was the derby WC won so maybe there was a letdown

Sent from my SM-S908E using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
But you have done this yourself by, even in a fantasy scenario, opted for composite teams instead of real clubs with tradition and history. Thats very strange and a bit contradictory to me 🤷‍♂️
North Melbourne can't support itself without selling games or getting handouts by the AFL.

The Roos should have been just a VFL team.
 
I get that, but in real terms, would it have been a best of the best state league clubs, or would it have been an A-league style comp with new composite clubs? and consider this-

Port- biggest club out of any SANFL or WAFL clubs, been an AFL team in a two team state for 27 years, been a top 4 lock four out of the last five years, acquired a number 1 draft pick and one of the most talked about players of recent times while still near the top of the ladder: $16 mil in variable funding last year
North- already one of the smallest clubs in a 10 team state, done bugger all for a quarter of a century, in the last 5 years the most horrendous onfield period, at any level, in the clubs 155 year history, and in fact statistically fielding one of the worst teams seen in the history of Australian rules football: $18-19mil in variable funding

So honestly how do we think a Norwood or an East Perth(let alone smaller clubs) would fair if they were in some kind of hypothetical superleague over smaller Vic teams? seems like this dream league would be exactly the same as what we have now with different names and faces (i.e you could have an even number of teams from each footy state, we know damn well the league is still choosing to have its grand final in a 100k stadium over a 50k stadium)
A fair bit of that funding is compensation for not having access to the marquee timeslots and blockbuster status bequeathed upon the Big 4/5 Vic clubs.
The price the AFL pays for not having treating all teams fairly.
In that, Port Adelaide and North Melbourne are in the same boat.
 
North Melbourne can't support itself without selling games or getting handouts by the AFL.

The Roos should have been just a VFL team.
Give North a proportional amount of home games against every other Melbourne club and a proportional amount of Melbourne marquee fixtures such as Anzac Day then make this argument.

Since 18 teams in 2012, teams should host 11/17 teams home game on average (.64 times per year)
Counting the initial intended fixture of 2020
Carlton have hosted Collingwood every single year except 2017 (12/13 years)
North have hosted Collingwood 4 times out of 13 years (4/13)

If it were truly random the chance of getting 12/13 or higher is 2.5%
The chance of getting 4/13 or lower is 1.5%.

It isn't due to chance, North get dudded in their ability to generate revenue relative to other Melbourne clubs.
 
Last edited:
If one of Freo or West Coast gets one extra week at home - omigawshsounfairthe world is fallingdown.

Anyone dares to suggest that Collingwood, Carlton or Essendon have to travel to Tasmania for a game and the land arises with outrage. Indeed even travelling to far away Manuka is too much to demand of them!! Since 2001 the pies have played once at Manuka, and Essendon and Carlton haven't had to worry about regular season games here at all. Ever.

Some great research a while back by the mob at the ARC shows the basic concept -

https://thearcfooty.com/2016/08/28/...ther-than-any-other-player-in-aflvfl-history/

View attachment 2151810

In rough terms - by the end of his career - Pav had travelled enough to do 21 complete laps of the globe at the equator - or go to the moon and back twice and get nearly halfway there again.

View attachment 2151811

And others have added on:





So one extra game at home for the WA teams (who don't get opening round, gather round or any other bloody round) somehow destroys the comp???

a good graph
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

A fair bit of that funding is compensation for not having access to the marquee timeslots and blockbuster status bequeathed upon the Big 4/5 Vic clubs.
The price the AFL pays for not having treating all teams fairly.
In that, Port Adelaide and North Melbourne are in the same boat.

Good Jesus!! a Bigfooty poster that actually knows how variable funding works?!?! nearly fell out of my damn chair.

Please excuse me, I'm currently in the process of having an ambulance whisk me away to the emergency room of my local hospital so I can be treated for shock.
 
Great deal for all concerned I reckon. Nth get two extra games at home plus a bucket load of cash, plus helps alleviate the very significant travel disadvantage WA teams face.
There’s intangibles too to benefit Nth, our veterans footy club has a few diehard Nth supporters and we’re already discussing a road trip to the Bunbury game. Looks like the first one in Bunbury will be against the eagles so I’ll def be buying a Roo’s jumper and shouting as hard as any lifelong Roo’s supporter that they wipe the floor with the Eagles!!
They’ll soon become most of WA’s “second team” on that basis which is a great market to crack for short term memberships and merchandise sales.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Totally agree. If North make a success of this in terms of money, support base and some on field success and actually see the club grow a bit it won't be long before other Vic clubs do the same thing. As we know Collingwood is trying to persuade the AFL to transfer it's Marvel home game to the Gold Coast.

To me the AFL are wasting the opportunities they have actually created themselves. Having 2 clubs in each of NSW and Qld. Imagine if Carlton or Essendon did a deal to play their Marvel GWS game at the SCG.... Both those clubs would have significant support bases in Sydney.

They each sell 3 games memberships in Sydney.... eg Ess v Giants (SCG), Syd v Ess (SCG) and Giants v Ess (Homebush). They are really only selling one home game....Essendon gets bigger membership, prods some locals to get behind Giants or Swans . It's the same reality that's been going on in Melbourne for 100years...multiple clubs in the one town....won't be as big as Melbourne of course but builds up the rivalry and promotes the game in Sydney.

You can back it in Collingwood will be selling 3 game memberships in Qld if they get their way in negotiating with the AFL.
 
There was a real opportunity to make the new national competition country wide and elite.

In WA, you would have got 2 teams from the start. Let’s say Fremantle and Perth. Four clubs align with each team ie Perth, West Perth, East Perth and Subiaco forming a Perth team. South and East Fremantle, Swans and Claremont.

Both teams with about the same amount of fans and resources.

SA could have Port and Adelaide straight off the bat.

Swans already existed.

7 Victorian Clubs invited to the new competition.

12 team competition with only the Swans needing financial support.

Maybe, you have added Tasmania and Brisbane with the 4 VFL clubs offered the opportunity to relocate.

People can say it would destroy Victorian traditions but WA and SA had their leagues reduced in importance.
This is the great pity.

There could have been proper clubs in the competition with a real history and not afl franchises. The competition would have resulted in the right number of teams in the competition and the quality wouldn't have become diluted.
 
Good Jesus!! a Bigfooty poster that actually knows how variable funding works?!?! nearly fell out of my damn chair.

Please excuse me, I'm currently in the process of having an ambulance whisk me away to the emergency room of my local hospital so I can be treated for shock.

Hawthorn received possibly the worst draw of any club this season consisting of mainly Sunday games in the afternoon slot. In fact this was the case for their first five to six games; they also got no Friday night games. Yet, despite this they will get the equal lowest in afl distribution again no doubt this season.

So this does not really fit with your theory that bad draws are compensated by receiving the highest in afl funding distributions.
 
Hawthorn received possibly the worst draw of any club this season consisting of mainly Sunday games in the afternoon slot. In fact this was the case for their first five to six games; they also got no Friday night games. Yet, despite this they will get the equal lowest in afl distribution again no doubt this season.

So this does not really fit with your theory that bad draws are compensated by receiving the highest in afl funding distributions.
It’s not a theory.
Variable funding is a fact. Compensation funding forming part of the model, covering access to “blockbuster” status, marquee time slots, national FTA games, etc are part of the model.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

North want to play 2 home games in WA next season

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top