Thread starter
#1
read below about how one team can look to take advantage of the league.
surely the AFL couldn't get anymore bent then it already is??
_________________________________________
Collingwood's audacious plan
7:09:41 PM Thu 8 May, 2003
Paul Gough
afl.com.au
Related Content:
Other Paul Gough columns
Collingwood’s push to play a home game in Sydney each season from next year – at the expense of playing a game in either Perth or Adelaide – sounds like a rich club trying to buy itself a dream draw.
And should the AFL approve of the Pies’ audacious plan it will not only further widen the gap between the haves and have-nots in the competition but will make an already compromised draw even more compromised.
The Pies’ plan is to play two games in Sydney – one of them a “home” game against the Swans – every year from 2004 onwards as part of an annual fixture, which would see them play four interstate game every year with the other 18 to be played in Melbourne.
But here is the real catch – the two Sydney games would be included every year in those four interstate matches with the Pies also wanting to play one of the other two in Brisbane each year and rotate the other game between Adelaide and Perth.
If the plan was approved that would mean the Magpies would be spared every year from either having to face both Adelaide or Port Adelaide at the daunting AAMI Stadium or both Fremantle or West Coast at a Subiaco ground these days more often referred to as the “House of Pain” – such is the success rate for visiting teams.
The Magpies argue that their presence as the self-proclaimed biggest sporting club in Australia would boost the health of the game in the traditional rugby league states of New South Wales and Queensland.
And given the Magpies’ current popularity that is a sound theory!
But surely the AFL draw should be about giving every team as fair a chance as possible to contest the finals each year.
Already with only 22 rounds and 16 teams it is not possible to produce the ideal draw – all teams playing each other twice (once at home and once away as occurs in all the major soccer leagues in Europe) – but to allow a club like Collingwood to get away with its Sydney plan would further compromise the fixture.
By having to travel to Perth and Adelaide a total of just once each season, the Pies could have a three game head-start over some of their fellow Victorian clubs each season – who are unlucky enough to be drawn to play both the Adelaide and both the Perth sides away from home.
And in a competition where places in the top four or in the eight can be decided on percentage – that is simply far too big an advantage.
But good luck to the Magpies if they can get away with it because their claim that their presence in Sydney and Brisbane each season is far more important in growing the game than them playing in traditional AFL cities such as Adelaide and Perth, makes sense.
However, growing the game in Sydney and Brisbane should not come at the expense of essentially making it easier for Victoria’s most powerful club to make it into the finals each season.
And remember this is the same Collingwood that last year made the finals for the first time in eight years and this year is no certainty to make the finals, having lost its past three matches.
The other factor that must stop the AFL from allowing Collingwood to play a home game in Sydney is that if approved it would give the Swans’ 13 home games a year from 2004.
Already the Western Bulldogs play a “home” game against the Swans in Sydney each year. What if other financially struggling clubs such as St Kilda, the Kangaroos, Geelong and Melbourne all decided to follow suit?
In the end the Swans could finish up with about 17 home games a year and again would have an unfair advantage over other clubs in making the eight.
If the Pies were truly interested in growing the game then let them move one of their home games to an area that is starved of AFL action such as Cairns or Darwin in much the same way as Hawthorn has helped grow the game in Launceston in the past two years by playing home games in footy-starved Tasmania.
This would have no impact on the credibility of the AFL fixture and would certainly do wonders for growing the game of Australian rules football.
But a push into Sydney - along with demands of fewer games in either Perth or Adelaide - smacks of a rich club, which has struggled to make the finals in recent years, trying to use its popularity to give itself a better chance of making it into September each year.
Paul Gough is the senior writer for the AFL-Telstra Network. His views are not necessarily those of the AFL or the clubs.
surely the AFL couldn't get anymore bent then it already is??
_________________________________________
Collingwood's audacious plan
7:09:41 PM Thu 8 May, 2003
Paul Gough
afl.com.au
Related Content:
Other Paul Gough columns
Collingwood’s push to play a home game in Sydney each season from next year – at the expense of playing a game in either Perth or Adelaide – sounds like a rich club trying to buy itself a dream draw.
And should the AFL approve of the Pies’ audacious plan it will not only further widen the gap between the haves and have-nots in the competition but will make an already compromised draw even more compromised.
The Pies’ plan is to play two games in Sydney – one of them a “home” game against the Swans – every year from 2004 onwards as part of an annual fixture, which would see them play four interstate game every year with the other 18 to be played in Melbourne.
But here is the real catch – the two Sydney games would be included every year in those four interstate matches with the Pies also wanting to play one of the other two in Brisbane each year and rotate the other game between Adelaide and Perth.
If the plan was approved that would mean the Magpies would be spared every year from either having to face both Adelaide or Port Adelaide at the daunting AAMI Stadium or both Fremantle or West Coast at a Subiaco ground these days more often referred to as the “House of Pain” – such is the success rate for visiting teams.
The Magpies argue that their presence as the self-proclaimed biggest sporting club in Australia would boost the health of the game in the traditional rugby league states of New South Wales and Queensland.
And given the Magpies’ current popularity that is a sound theory!
But surely the AFL draw should be about giving every team as fair a chance as possible to contest the finals each year.
Already with only 22 rounds and 16 teams it is not possible to produce the ideal draw – all teams playing each other twice (once at home and once away as occurs in all the major soccer leagues in Europe) – but to allow a club like Collingwood to get away with its Sydney plan would further compromise the fixture.
By having to travel to Perth and Adelaide a total of just once each season, the Pies could have a three game head-start over some of their fellow Victorian clubs each season – who are unlucky enough to be drawn to play both the Adelaide and both the Perth sides away from home.
And in a competition where places in the top four or in the eight can be decided on percentage – that is simply far too big an advantage.
But good luck to the Magpies if they can get away with it because their claim that their presence in Sydney and Brisbane each season is far more important in growing the game than them playing in traditional AFL cities such as Adelaide and Perth, makes sense.
However, growing the game in Sydney and Brisbane should not come at the expense of essentially making it easier for Victoria’s most powerful club to make it into the finals each season.
And remember this is the same Collingwood that last year made the finals for the first time in eight years and this year is no certainty to make the finals, having lost its past three matches.
The other factor that must stop the AFL from allowing Collingwood to play a home game in Sydney is that if approved it would give the Swans’ 13 home games a year from 2004.
Already the Western Bulldogs play a “home” game against the Swans in Sydney each year. What if other financially struggling clubs such as St Kilda, the Kangaroos, Geelong and Melbourne all decided to follow suit?
In the end the Swans could finish up with about 17 home games a year and again would have an unfair advantage over other clubs in making the eight.
If the Pies were truly interested in growing the game then let them move one of their home games to an area that is starved of AFL action such as Cairns or Darwin in much the same way as Hawthorn has helped grow the game in Launceston in the past two years by playing home games in footy-starved Tasmania.
This would have no impact on the credibility of the AFL fixture and would certainly do wonders for growing the game of Australian rules football.
But a push into Sydney - along with demands of fewer games in either Perth or Adelaide - smacks of a rich club, which has struggled to make the finals in recent years, trying to use its popularity to give itself a better chance of making it into September each year.
Paul Gough is the senior writer for the AFL-Telstra Network. His views are not necessarily those of the AFL or the clubs.

