Opinion Selling Home Games

[bh90210fan]

In a normal year, selling a home game should not be allowed for the obvious reason that it provides an unfair advantage to a rich club. But this is not a normal year, and West Coast will not be getting a disproportionate share of home games - this would have been a 7th game at Optus, less than ladder leading Port Adelaide will get. If integrity and fairness are to be the yardsticks from now on, lets look at all the inequities - in my view the AFL regularly seeks to maximize revenue at the expense of fairness, so not sure why the line was drawn here....

It’s fear

 

[captain blood 17]

Yeh, you only played 9 of your last 10 at the G.
I wish people would understand it's hurtful to Tigers fans to insinuate they had a clear run like 10 out of 10.

You're right mate, when it's a Melbourne or Collingwood home game against us we should play it in Ballarat. Well thought out.

 

[captain blood 17]

To answer the OP's question, the AFL was right to knock this on the head. It's unethical by both teams to try this during the season. And if it was allowed, does that mean next year say an Essendon can purchase a game v a bottom club if it means helping them get into finals or say it's the difference between finishing bottom 8 or top 4? Too many issues around it.

 

[Soberian Tiger]

You're right mate, when it's a Melbourne or Collingwood home game against us we should play it in Ballarat. Well thought out.

Should play Port in Ballarat.

In the last decade, they very rarely have been forced to venture into Melbourne to play Richmond.

 

[captain blood 17]

MCG grand finals
Gifted Home finals against higher seeds
Select clubs avoiding travel to Geelong, Tasmania, etc
7+ games fixtured on the mcg to cap the season
17 games each season in Melbourne

INTEGRITY

10 clubs of the AFL (over half the comp) are based in Melbourne. You're aware of this right? And there's 3 grounds available. And some of these clubs have memberships of 70k and above.

 

[Soberian Tiger]

If it is only about money almost all, if not all, Richmond games should be at the MCG.

Which they shouldn't be (and never have been).

The case where it is about the money (and spectacle) is the grand final. That's why the long-term contract was signed, for better or worse.

If that is wrong and there's a fair argument that it is, then so is the purchase of home games for the sake of revenue over fairness.

The GF contract can't be torn up, but we can avoid rich clubs buying home games.

After all, Richmond is now a rich club too. I would object to my club's purchase of a home game, were that to happen (which it won't - the club cops flak already for fixturing outside its control).

 

[Gralin]

Please keep the discussion to the topic which is selling of home games during the regular Season.

Finals and the Grand Final location are not part of the discussion

 

[bh90210fan]

10 clubs of the AFL (over half the comp) are based in Melbourne. You're aware of this right? And there's 3 grounds available. And some of these clubs have memberships of 70k and above.

9 clubs in Melbourne and 2 grounds. You don’t need to play 17 games a year on them.

 

[Kwality]

There never will be integrity with the 'draw' as long as 'blockbuster' games like ANZAC day and Queen's b'day are a permanent thing.

Draw/drawer, eh !
Its as relevant as home & away ....

 

[redglare]

In a normal year, selling a home game should not be allowed for the obvious reason that it provides an unfair advantage to a rich club. But this is not a normal year, and West Coast will not be getting a disproportionate share of home games - this would have been a 7th game at Optus, less than ladder leading Port Adelaide will get. If integrity and fairness are to be the yardsticks from now on, lets look at all the inequities - in my view the AFL regularly seeks to maximize revenue at the expense of fairness, so not sure why the line was drawn here....

 

[mightymouse75]

How else will north Melbourne make money? No more fans to win in Melbourne & Tasmanians don't like them on mass.
They are already dragging the rest of the competition
down with all teams having to drop players & staff to their maximum operating levels..

 

[Seeds]

It’s fear

Its unjust. You already have a massive advantage over most sides and you want more.

 

[Seeds]

I was replying to a specific post.

Sorry but your proposition reeks of the MCG is a neutral venue nonsense.

In 2020 the Eagles have put a deal to North, the AFL says no. North are down $700k (so we are told) & the Eagles members & sponsors dont get the value of that expenditure.
The difference is indeed the Eagles win, North win not just one club selling a game or in the Hawks case as part of a wider sponsorship.

The FIXture in 2020 has been done on a rolling basis & the Eagles demonstrated a proactive approach, as the Bulldogs etc have done.

It really is time we got away from 'home & away', its the 2020s not the 1920s.

The eagles win. North win. Everyone else loses.

 

[captain blood 17]

9 clubs in Melbourne and 2 grounds. You don’t need to play 17 games a year on them.

Why not? And we got Richmond, Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton, Hawthorn, Melbourne, North Melbourne, St Kilda, Western Bulldogs and Geelong who play games at both the MCG, Marvel and GMHBA. That’s 10 clubs bro. Add in return matches from home tenants and you can see why clubs are playing up to 17 games in Melbourne.
If you’re good enough, you’ll win it. Trying to buy a game late in the season isn’t acceptable and opens a pandoras box for future seasons. Particularly with big clubs who would be able to pressure and manipulate poorer clubs. The AFL was right to reject the notion.
And you guys should be happy. You have had a massive leg up with home games this year.

Sent from my iPad using righteous Bhodi manpower

 

[Kwality]

The eagles win. North win. Everyone else loses.

The hopelessly compromised comp is even more compromised.

 

[VicBased]

I mean, with one (or is it both?) hands tied behind it's back as you claim, surely that would be impossible...

Just imagine how good we would be with both hands untied? The AFL keep one tied up to give you guys a chance.

 

[oak79]

Just imagine how good we would be with both hands untied? The AFL keep one tied up to give you guys a chance.

Imagine if Hawks had to play a home game v the crows in Adelaide... Oh hang on.

 

[VicBased]

Imagine if Hawks had to play a home game v the crows in Adelaide... Oh hang on.

Yeah...sorry it had to be you guys to wear the wrath of Adelaide. Guess it had to be someone.

 

[telsor]

9 clubs in Melbourne and 2 grounds. You don’t need to play 17 games a year on them.

11 home games.
We then play 11/17 teams away, 9/17 of those teams play in Melbourne. 11*9/17=5.8
So in an average year, we 'should' play ~16.8 games in Melbourne.

 

[bh90210fan]

11 home games.
We then play 11/17 teams away, 9/17 of those teams play in Melbourne. 11*9/17=5.8
So in an average year, we 'should' play ~16.8 games in Melbourne.

8/17 opposition teams play in Melbourne. You can’t play against yourself. You shouldn’t be playing more than half of your away games in Melbourne every year

 

[TassieEagle]

If North want to take the cash, then whats the issue? You can't complain about fairness and home games, this year especially.

And also those complaining it is before the fixture is released... well the last round fixture has not been released. The only reason teams are known because it is the last team everyone has to play.

 

[Asapartyhat]

You might ask yourself why was the Eagles offering enough money to pay the wages of ten employees or more for a year to move a match when they have cut so many employees from their payroll ?
The answer would be the Eagles cut employees because it was an AFL directive not because they need to or want to.
Similar scenarios have been playing out in nationaly affiliated companies as they cover for loses on the east coast by unnessarily cutting interstate staff.

 

[amazingjoshy]

As others have said, there wouldn't be any objection if you did before the start of the season.

Especially with the top 4 race being so tight this year, it was an inappropriate offer by the Eagles IMHO

You do realise that was impossible since the game was scheduled about a month ago and still doesn't have a venue?

 

[bear3]

Home games should not be sold mid season where they have the potential to effect the finishing position of finals.They would have been better off taking the game to a Kalgoolie or some somewhere well outside of perth in regional WA then might have had a better chance.

 

[iameviljez]

If North want to take the cash, then whats the issue? You can't complain about fairness and home games, this year especially.

The issue is that if the Eagles buy a home game, squeak over the line in a nailbiter, and take the last top-four spot, it's unfair on the other side competing for that position (particularly if it's a side that can't currently play at home).

The fact that the Eagles are attempting to purchase the game at the last as they are on the edge of the four is pretty cynical.

And yes, this year is intrinsically unfair, but that doesn't mean we should just throw open the doors and say that anything goes.