The Grand Final should be hosted at a neutral venue

[Mitchell54]

NO.



as simple as that

 

[marty36]

On the other hand the AFL does many things other competitions dont do, not the least of which is having nine teams in one city. This may well never change. Victoria is already the fastest growing state and by the time the contract at the MCG is up around 2040, Victoria is projected to have the same or greater population than New South Wales.

Even if it was true that Vic would overtake NSW in population which I doubt for obvious reasons, at present the percentage of AFL supporters against Vics population is high, compare the percentage of AFL supporters in both QLD and NSW to their populations. Now tell me where the AFL see their maximum growth potential. To service or support that growth they will need to do things like play Grand Finlas in those states. Its not about the numbers through the gates, its about the TV rights can you imagine what reward$$$$$$$ the AFL will get in their next deal if the QLD and NSW TV ratings increase substantially, do you think they are worried about 100K through the gate against 80K even 50K.

 

[marty36]

To argue that the advantage isn't diluted with the number of teams sharing the ground is ridiculous.
Heck, when I look at the fixture and see the game is vs an MCG tenant at the G, my only thought is if I need to pay for entry or if I can use my membership, not "rad, home game vs Collingwod, we've got this!!" Same two teams in Tasmania? Completely different, a 50/50 becomes 80/20

If every team shared the 1 ground would the advantage be eliminated? Yes
If every team had their own home ground, would that maximise their "home ground advantage" ? Yes
Where we are at at the moment falls somewhere in between.

The advantage Vic teams against other Vic teams is debatable bar Geelong, but the advantage West Coast would have had over Hawthorn or when Freo played hawthorn, by having those games played in WA would have be a large one as it was for Hawthorn for Freo and West Coast to come to Vic. Thats not saying Hawthorn wouldnt have won as most would agree they were a far better team, but one year the gap between the grand finalists will be narrow and that home ground advantage could be the difference between winning and losing, seems a very unfair system in the current circumstances doesnt it?

Two ways to look at it win the advantage by finishing higher or just take the game neutral. Personally I think the AFL's decision will be around money not what is fair and ATM it suits to be a the MCG but in the future I think it will be played around Australia but predominantly in the eastern states again not for gate takings but to show the support to those states who are going to provide the biggest TV audience.

 

[The_Wookie]

Even if it was true that Vic would overtake NSW in population which I doubt for obvious reasons, at present the percentage of AFL supporters against Vics population is high, compare the percentage of AFL supporters in both QLD and NSW to their populations. Now tell me where the AFL see their maximum growth potential. To service or support that growth they will need to do things like play Grand Finlas in those states. Its not about the numbers through the gates, its about the TV rights can you imagine what reward$$$$$$$ the AFL will get in their next deal if the QLD and NSW TV ratings increase substantially, do you think they are worried about 100K through the gate against 80K even 50K.

Playing the Grand Final interstate will have zero effect on the games growth prospects elsewhere - grassroots development and having teams in apropriate locations will. The game will grow regardless of where the game is played.

 

[marty36]

Playing the Grand Final interstate will have zero effect on the games growth prospects elsewhere - grassroots development and having teams in apropriate locations will. The game will grow regardless of where the game is played.

You cant expect a major following from two states that are presently over 50% of australias poplulation, but turn around and say follow our sport but we arent prepared to share the big day around, cant be all take their will need to be some give. As I have said previously we can argue this forever but it appears pretty damn evident the AFL are following the NFL in the US with a lot of similarities be prepared for more and to retain a GF in one state wont happen. Also its totally unfair on the Non Victorian teams but that is a mere side issue.

 

[smeltitdeltit]

The advantage Vic teams against other Vic teams is debatable bar Geelong, but the advantage West Coast would have had over Hawthorn or when Freo played hawthorn, by having those games played in WA would have be a large one as it was for Hawthorn for Freo and West Coast to come to Vic. Thats not saying Hawthorn wouldnt have won as most would agree they were a far better team, but one year the gap between the grand finalists will be narrow and that home ground advantage could be the difference between winning and losing, seems a very unfair system in the current circumstances doesnt it?

Two ways to look at it win the advantage by finishing higher or just take the game neutral. Personally I think the AFL's decision will be around money not what is fair and ATM it suits to be a the MCG but in the future I think it will be played around Australia but predominantly in the eastern states again not for gate takings but to show the support to those states who are going to provide the biggest TV audience.

Kind of my point. West coast wouldnt have made the GF without the "home ground advantage" every 2nd week that MCG tennants dont get by design. Its a counter point to the whole GF at the MCG is unfair argument.

As for your point on it not being about fairness, but the dollar, on that i agree completely

 

[marty36]

Kind of my point. West coast wouldnt have made the GF without the "home ground advantage" every 2nd week that MCG tennants dont get by design. Its a counter point to the whole GF at the MCG is unfair argument.

As for your point on it not being about fairness, but the dollar, on that i agree completely

Maybe West Coast may not have made the GF if they had to play 80% of there games in Victoria but doesnt it seem fair that its a 50% / 50% for where home and away is played or do you believe that non victorian clubs should be hugely disadvantaged by playing over 50% of their games out of their home state. If that happened in Adelaide do you think I would remain a member or tell the AFL to jam their membership and maybe lose interest in the sport thus reducing the market share of AFL.

The question is what is fair for the teams and memberships, to have the GF in Victoria only is that fair on supporters and clubs, I dont believe anyone can say that is fair. If it was held neutral ie Brisbnae if no QLD team made it, that actually would be fair to all concerned, well as fair as it can be considering WA teams will have one hell of a Flight.

Its like anything you need to make things as fair as practical or risk losing supporters or as the AFL will see suporters as market share.

 

[Murraj1966]

Nah just keep gifting the Victorians Flag year after year, I swear our 3 Flags are worth 15...my proof is Freo in 20 years they haven't won one yet.

I weep for you.

 

[Jack_the_Ninja]

Kind of my point. West coast wouldnt have made the GF without the "home ground advantage" every 2nd week that MCG tennants dont get by design. Its a counter point to the whole GF at the MCG is unfair argument.

As for your point on it not being about fairness, but the dollar, on that i agree completely

So let me get this straight, your saying by playing home every second week we have a massive advantage ? well have you thought about the flip side ? we travel every second week as well to the other side of the country. That's 11 times we have to leave this state to play a game, how many times did the Hawks leave thier state ? look how many 300+ gamers we have from WA - Pav is it.

 

[The_Wookie]

You cant expect a major following from two states that are presently over 50% of australias poplulation, but turn around and say follow our sport but we arent prepared to share the big day around, cant be all take their will need to be some give.

You can apparently. The AFL have been doing it since 1987, and will be doing it until 2037 at least.

As I have said previously we can argue this forever but it appears pretty damn evident the AFL are following the NFL in the US with a lot of similarities be prepared for more and to retain a GF in one state wont happen.

The AFL dont have conferences. The AFL dont have private owners. The AFL dont have a superbowl that moves to the highest bidder every year. Hell the AFL wont even play it at night, even though their broadcasters have repeatedly requested it.

Also its totally unfair on the Non Victorian teams but that is a mere side issue.

Should have started their own comp...no wait they ASKED to join a Victorian competition.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

West coast wouldnt have even made the top 4 let alone the GF without the massive home ground advantage subi provides that the mcg doesnt to its multiple tennants, likewise etihad.
You want fair?
Build us our own home ground each in which we can act all feral, boo every opposition touch and make visiting fans feel so insecure that they second guess going to the game, IF they were lucky enough to manage to get a ticket in the first place.

To be fair you all had that home ground not that long ago and all of you gave it up without the slightest hesitation.

 

[marty36]

You can apparently. The AFL have been doing it since 1987, and will be doing it until 2037 at least.



The AFL dont have conferences. The AFL dont have private owners. The AFL dont have a superbowl that moves to the highest bidder every year. Hell the AFL wont even play it at night, even though their broadcasters have repeatedly requested it.



Should have started their own comp...no wait they ASKED to join a Victorian competition.

My Point exactly, if the AFL are happy with their market share as it stands to day, especially in the eastern states they will leave it the way it is, if they want to grow the sport things will change, what are your thoughts on the AFL's plans and if they are happy with their current position easpecially in the eastern states where the majority of Australias population lives? If they need to compensate the MCG to shift the GF to gain a greater market share of the Australian population they will, if it means increasing the next TV deal. A commercial risk will be taken, but all will depend on gaining greater market share which Victorias growth in population wont fill, but the 13 million that live in QLD and NSW will.

As for teams being aware what they entered, they were, but dont say Adelaide asked to join we all know what happened there, little bit of blackmailing going on, to ensure the signature of the SANFL.

 

[The_Wookie]

My Point exactly, if the AFL are happy with their market share as it stands to day, especially in the eastern states they will leave it the way it is, if they want to grow the sport things will change, what are your thoughts on the AFL's plans and if they are happy with their current position easpecially in the eastern states where the majority of Australias population lives? If they need to compensate the MCG to shift the GF to gain a greater market share of the Australian population they will, if it means increasing the next TV deal. A commercial risk will be taken, but all will depend on gaining greater market share which Victorias growth in population wont fill, but the 13 million that live in QLD and NSW will.

A Grand Final will not make a lick of difference to the games ability to grow, nor will it have any affect on the market share of the game. There is literally no evidence to support the assertion that it will, and there is almost 30 years of data going that says it doesnt matter.

The Victorian Government has already said it will not accept compensation for moving the Grand Final, it considers it vital to the States promotion.

As for teams being aware what they entered, they were, but dont say Adelaide asked to join we all know what happened there, little bit of blackmailing going on, to ensure the signature of the SANFL.

The SANFL applied to join the VFL with a composite team in 1981-82. The WAFLs original application dates to 1984.

 

[smeltitdeltit]

So let me get this straight, your saying by playing home every second week we have a massive advantage ? well have you thought about the flip side ? we travel every second week as well to the other side of the country. That's 11 times we have to leave this state to play a game, how many times did the Hawks leave thier state ? look how many 300+ gamers we have from WA - Pav is it.

Ok, so the travel counters the home ground thing. Great. Can you please get the mods to close all those whingeing travel threads that pop up every year. Thats sorted. That leaves the GF.
Sorry to say thats locked until 2037. Fair? Probably not but what can you do.
Glad we can put the travel whinge thing to bed permanantly though.

 

[marty36]

A Grand Final will not make a lick of difference to the games ability to grow, nor will it have any affect on the market share of the game. There is literally no evidence to support the assertion that it will, and there is almost 30 years of data going that says it doesnt matter.

The Victorian Government has already said it will not accept compensation for moving the Grand Final, it considers it vital to the States promotion.



The SANFL applied to join the VFL with a composite team in 1981-82. The WAFLs original application dates to 1984.

I suppose a lot will change when more teams are introduced from those eastern states or relocations are made into the eastern states as we know at present the AFL is made up of 60% Victorian teams so that effectively controls the vote when electing the commision. For their not to be more representation in those eastern states and less from Vic, is basically giving in on attempting to grow the sport in Australia to the next level, can it be grown? Thats the million $ question, probably easier and less costly than trying for the overseas market. But to think it will stay status quo seems very optomistic. If the Vic governemnt want to hold them to the deal, that is fine or they may see it as a way of negotiating now to ensure a better slice of the action once the agreemnet ends. No one holds the aces as the wheel turns, short term pain for long term gain as they say.

 

[smeltitdeltit]

To be fair you all had that home ground not that long ago and all of you gave it up without the slightest hesitation.

Yep, largely because it was financially unviable. The same cannot be said about subiaco/whatecer the new stadiums called.
Another location based advantage the Eagles have.
Im being facetious and i get all your (eagles fans as a whole) concerns but its human nature to see all the snakes but none of the ladders.

 

[marty36]

Ok, so the travel counters the home ground thing. Great. Can you please get the mods to close all those whingeing travel threads that pop up every year. Thats sorted. That leaves the GF.
Sorry to say thats locked until 2037. Fair? Probably not but what can you do.
Glad we can put the travel whinge thing to bed permanantly though.

Is it locked or will it be renegotiated, the question should be considered. Victoria having just one quarter of the Australian population means some serious growth potential for the AFL by not setting restrictions on that expansion. I know the GF want be the be all and end all, but it is showing to the eastern seaboard that they are serious about venturing into their states, no doubt you will need both the QLD and NSW government behind those expansion plans. As was the case with teh SA government investing in Adelaide Oval. So will these governments want a marque event in return for their support?

 

[marty36]

Yep, largely because it was financially unviable. The same cannot be said about subiaco/whatecer the new stadiums called.
Another location based advantage the Eagles have.
Im being facetious and i get all your (eagles fans as a whole) concerns but its human nature to see all the snakes but none of the ladders.

They have the advantage as do the Crows and Power because the state governments are firmly behind those teams with investing Millions into these facilities.

 

[smeltitdeltit]

Is it locked or will it be renegotiated, the question should be considered. Victoria having just one quarter of the Australian population means some serious growth potential for the AFL by not setting restrictions on that expansion. I know the GF want be the be all and end all, but it is showing to the eastern seaboard that they are serious about venturing into their states, no doubt you will need both the QLD and NSW government behind those expansion plans. As was the case with teh SA government investing in Adelaide Oval. So will these governments want a marque event in return for their support?

Pretty sure its a contract with the mcc until 2037. Only getting out would be with agreement from both parties. Not gonna happen.

 

[hawker513]

Nah just keep gifting the Victorians Flag year after year, I swear our 3 Flags are worth 15...my proof is Freo in 20 years they haven't won one yet.

That has nothing to do with anything! Freo have only been good enough to make it to 1 grand final which they really could have won had they kicked straight. Richmond also haven't won one in 20 years and they are from Melbourne so where are you going with this?

 

[marty36]

Pretty sure its a contract with the mcc until 2037. Only getting out would be with agreement from both parties. Not gonna happen.

That what was said about Adelaide oval until the State Government gifted the SACA $100 million, if the MCG play hard ball then when the contract comes up how favorably will they be considered for games in the future. As I said short term pain for long term gain.

 

[marty36]

That has nothing to do with anything! Freo have only been good enough to make it to 1 grand final which they really could have won had they kicked straight. Richmond also haven't won one in 20 years and they are from Melbourne so where are you going with this?

It makes sense ATM to play in Victoria depending on the elelcted members of the commision is whether or not they will push for a move to a neutral, Who knows the AFL GF could be changed to a best of three series(similar to other sports) more money, play at three different grounds including the G, no contracts broken.

 

[The_Wookie]

Is it locked or will it be renegotiated, the question should be considered. Victoria having just one quarter of the Australian population means some serious growth potential for the AFL by not setting restrictions on that expansion. I know the GF want be the be all and end all, but it is showing to the eastern seaboard that they are serious about venturing into their states, no doubt you will need both the QLD and NSW government behind those expansion plans. As was the case with teh SA government investing in Adelaide Oval. So will these governments want a marque event in return for their support?

Because putting a brand new team in each state and spending tens of millions in development and facilities separately doesnt mean crap right? Its all about that one game a year. I rather think spending hundreds of millions on teams, academies, facilities and grassroots programs over 20 years shows you are far more serious about development and expansion of the game than simply holding a single big match a year.

The SA Governments investment in Adelaide Oval wasnt due to the possibility of holding a Grand Final, and neither is Perth Stadium being built with that expectation.

 

[The_Wookie]

It makes sense ATM to play in Victoria depending on the elelcted members of the commision is whether or not they will push for a move to a neutral, Who knows the AFL GF could be changed to a best of three series(similar to other sports) more money, play at three different grounds including the G, no contracts broken.

Legally, the MCC at least believes all Grand Finals - regardless of number - would have to be played at the MCG, although the AFL thinks otherwise. The question came up in 2010 for the replay.
ref: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/interstate-grand-final-a-possibility-20101013-16k1w.html

 

[syl97]

So let me get this straight, your saying by playing home every second week we have a massive advantage ? well have you thought about the flip side ? we travel every second week as well to the other side of the country. That's 11 times we have to leave this state to play a game, how many times did the Hawks leave thier state ? look how many 300+ gamers we have from WA - Pav is it.

Hawthorn left its state to play games 9 times in 2015, so not much different.