Mega Thread VICBias - Genuine Discussion Part 2

[The Feeder Club]

Pies have 5 away games at the G in 2025

Richmond who play 13 games at the G
Melbourne who play 12 games at the G
Carlton who play 11 games at the G
Hawks who play 10 games at the G
Dogs the Marvel tenant who play just 2 MCG games.

Which two Marvel tenants are you pretending play home games against Collingwood at the G?

Which is a result of the AFL enforced ground rationalisation, where the Hawks were not able to choose to play home games at Waverley, Dogs at Western Oval, Dees at the G.

The rort is those clubs chose $$ over on-field advantage.

Only a disengenuos posters would attempt to claim Melbourne enjoy the same home ground advantage in the NT that they enjoy at the G...but that is your line.

Narrow argument....pretty standard really, a home game is a game played at your home ground.

If you ain't at actually playing at your home ground any home ground advantage is reduced.

Should be pretty obvious stuff.

Yes ground familiarity is important.

It should be their 13th MCG game, so again it is an obvious reduction in familiarity advantage over their opponent compared to a game at their home ground.

This year WC play 4 games at Marvel, just like they did in 2024 and 2023, 12 games at Marvel in 3 years for the Eagles.

The Eagles 4 Marvel games are against Pies (only 9 games in same time frame), Dees (only 5 games), Hawks (10 games) and Dogs (37 games).

So using your own logic, WC play there more than 3 of their individual opponents, they then have a greater familiarity of the ground because they play there more than their individual opponents do, so yes they have home ground advantage in 3 of their games at Marvel.

This again a direct result of AFL enforced ground rationalisation imposed on the Melbourne teams.

Your own logic says WC enjoy home ground advantage in 3 games that should be away disadvantage games.

Your own logic should help you understand that it is the Melbourne teams who are disadvantaged.

11 games since 2014...not even 1 game per season.

When BOTH teams are playing their single game at a ground in a season, bit ridiculous to claim any familiarity advantage...but you do you.

The obviously greater advantage would be Melbourne playing their 13th game at the G, where they are at home in front of their fans against Freo playing their 2nd or 3rd game at the G.

More dopey fallacious claims
1.From your own list, two Marvel tenants are playing their home games at your home ground https://www.marvelstadium.com.au/tenant-clubs

2. What it is a result of is too many mendicant clubs in Victoria, who then voluntarily choose to play home games at alternate venues to attract additional revenue whilst maintaining a home ground advantage. These teams are not, as you ludicrously claimed them to be, away teams.

3. West Coast example might under different circumstances be interesting, if it wasn't for the fact that the sole explanation for this is that there are too many mendicant teams in Victoria

4. Let's do a little exercise to make you understand. When the team lists for Melbourne vs St Kilda were posted on Thursday night before the game in Alice, here are the 46 players ranked by career AFL games played at Trarger Park

Max Gawn 8
Christian Petracca 8
Christian Salem 7
Steven May 6
Jake Melsham 5
Jake Lever 5
Clayton Oliver 5
Bailey Fritsch 5
Ed Langfon 4
Kosi Pickett 4
Trent Rivers 4
Harrison Petty 3
Tom Sparrow 3
Jake Bowey 2
Kade Chandler 2
Judd McVee 2
Daniel Turner 1
Caleb Windsor 1
Five Melbourne players named playing their first AFL game there.

Dan Butler 1
Brad Hill 1
Zak Jones 1
Twenty Saints players named playing their first AFL game there

Melbourne are the home team
Melbourne are choosing to play there
Melbourne have far more familiarity with the ground
Advantage Melbourne

 

[doppleganger]

More dopey fallacious claims
1.From your own list, two Marvel tenants are playing their home games at your home ground https://www.marvelstadium.com.au/tenant-clubs

Essendon and Carlton are co-tenants.

MCC welcomes revised AFL agreement at MCG

MCC AFL agreement

mcc.org.au

Including MCG tenant clubs - namely Melbourne, Richmond, Collingwood, Hawthorn, Essendon and Carlton

But yes, please continue with your disengenuos posting that pretends a club that plays 11 games at the MCG ain't a tenant.

2. What it is a result of is too many mendicant clubs in Victoria, who then voluntarily choose to play home games at alternate venues to attract additional revenue whilst maintaining a home ground advantage. These teams are not, as you ludicrously claimed them to be, away teams.

They don't maintain a home ground advantage, they have their home ground advantage reduced.

3. West Coast example might under different circumstances be interesting, if it wasn't for the fact that the sole explanation for this is that there are too many mendicant teams in Victoria

The sole explanation is AFL enforced Melbourne ground rationalisation.

It was the AFL decision to stop playing games at multiple Melbourne grounds and instead invest in Docklands, the obvious result was a reduction in home ground advantage for just the Melbourne based teams.

It was the AFL that entered into a stadium agreement that guarantees a certain number of games to be played at Marvel, and for clubs like Richmond and Collingwood to play "home" games at Marvel.

By your own logic, WC actually enjoy a home ground advantage in 3 games at Marvel in 2025.

Yet moronic WC posters think they are disadvantaged when getting extra home ground advantage games?

4. Let's do a little exercise to make you understand. When the team lists for Melbourne vs St Kilda were posted on Thursday night before the game in Alice, here are the 46 players ranked by career AFL games played at Trarger Park

Max Gawn 8
Christian Petracca 8
Christian Salem 7
Steven May 6
Jake Melsham 5
Jake Lever 5
Clayton Oliver 5
Bailey Fritsch 5
Ed Langfon 4
Kosi Pickett 4
Trent Rivers 4
Harrison Petty 3
Tom Sparrow 3
Jake Bowey 2
Kade Chandler 2
Judd McVee 2
Daniel Turner 1
Caleb Windsor 1
Five Melbourne players named playing their first AFL game there.

So your "point" is that more than half the Melbourne players (15 of the 23) had played less than 5 games at the ground...for their entire career. Not just a season, but an entire career!!

You think playing 3 games at a venue gives you a home ground familiarity advantage???

The total combined games listed by the Melbourne team is 75 games. Max Gawn himself has played 126 games at the G.

It should be pretty bloody obvious that the Dees players are less familiar at a ground they play once at per season, compared to playing on their home ground. Their home ground is the ground they are very familiar with and play 12 times per year at.

Melbourne would enjoy a bigger familiarity advantage playing their 13th game at the G, compared to a single game in the NT...again that should be bloody obvious.

Not to mention the travel "impost", would clearly be better to stay at home and have your opponent come to play you...compared to travelling to play a game. But that is right, travel doesn't fatigue players or interrupt preparation / recovery if you are listed as the home team!!

The obvious point once again is that it is a Melbourne based "home" team giving up their ground familiarity advantage.

It should be obvious that is is more advantageous for Melbourne to host a team like Freo at the G, compared to hosting them at a random venue that ain't their home and is in a different state.

 

[demondavey]

It is even funnier when SA fans try to group themselves with WA clubs as copping a travel impost, or Geelong fans pretending they face a genuine away disadvantage at the G.

Results speak for themselves.

Anyone who thinks it is Melbourne teams who are dominating the H&A season and making GFs and winning flags need to actually just take a look at results.

‘Winning flags’ - you mean how since 2007 there’s been 2 non Vic clubs win flags by under 15 points against tenant sides and one non vic true neutral GF?

I just took a look at the results.

Are you actually reading what you write?

 

[demondavey]

Yeah but it’s not fair how Melbourne has comfier chairs in the departure lounge

Qantas club - where the Demons board meeting was held yesterday

 

[demondavey]

Pies have 5 away games at the G in 2025

Richmond who play 13 games at the G
Melbourne who play 12 games at the G
Carlton who play 11 games at the G
Hawks who play 10 games at the G
Dogs the Marvel tenant who play just 2 MCG games.

Which two Marvel tenants are you pretending play home games against Collingwood at the G?

Which is a result of the AFL enforced ground rationalisation, where the Hawks were not able to choose to play home games at Waverley, Dogs at Western Oval, Dees at the G.

The rort is those clubs chose $$ over on-field advantage.

Only a disengenuos posters would attempt to claim Melbourne enjoy the same home ground advantage in the NT that they enjoy at the G...but that is your line.

Narrow argument....pretty standard really, a home game is a game played at your home ground.

If you ain't at actually playing at your home ground any home ground advantage is reduced.

Should be pretty obvious stuff.

Yes ground familiarity is important.

It should be their 13th MCG game, so again it is an obvious reduction in familiarity advantage over their opponent compared to a game at their home ground.

This year WC play 4 games at Marvel, just like they did in 2024 and 2023, 12 games at Marvel in 3 years for the Eagles.

The Eagles 4 Marvel games are against Pies (only 9 games in same time frame), Dees (only 5 games), Hawks (10 games) and Dogs (37 games).

So using your own logic, WC play there more than 3 of their individual opponents, they then have a greater familiarity of the ground because they play there more than their individual opponents do, so yes they have home ground advantage in 3 of their games at Marvel.

This again a direct result of AFL enforced ground rationalisation imposed on the Melbourne teams.

Your own logic says WC enjoy home ground advantage in 3 games that should be away disadvantage games.

Your own logic should help you understand that it is the Melbourne teams who are disadvantaged.

11 games since 2014...not even 1 game per season.

When BOTH teams are playing their single game at a ground in a season, bit ridiculous to claim any familiarity advantage...but you do you.

The obviously greater advantage would be Melbourne playing their 13th game at the G, where they are at home in front of their fans against Freo playing their 2nd or 3rd game at the G.

Collingwood have 5 away games at the G? Ok…. You mean games against other MCG tenants where they don’t travel?

You leave Melbourne twice in 10 weeks.

 

[Cyclops]

This thread is done to death. There is Vic Bias, but its chiefly about poor states not having a Grand Final venue. Mostly the bias is big vs little clubs and AFL House running vanity projects vs reality.

Collingwood have 5 away games at the G? Ok…. You mean games against other MCG tenants where they don’t travel?

You leave Melbourne twice in 10 weeks.

...Collingwood pays Melbournes bills. Pay your own way and maybe your clubs opinions will matter, because currently Melbourne are a talent sink that begs us for Queens Birthday games. You're welcome.

We don't mind paying for the league, and we are not the only tent pole keeping a roof up over the Big Show (Eagles, Crows, Lions and the fake NSW clubs are important for the TV deals) but we are the biggest pole. It has been this way since 1897.

I don't want any clubs killed. You want a fair draw? Kill four weak VIC clubs including your club, and probably Power and GCS. The league is bloated with barely sustainable and frankly poorly run clubs living off the leagues dividend. The market would shrink but the remaining clubs would play better footy and be better run and with the dead wood cut there'd be less waste.

Keeping small clubs alive has a cost, an unfair fixture. Moaning that [club] plays [games] in [curated timeframe] is a waste of breath.

 

[doppleganger]

‘Winning flags’ - you mean how since 2007 there’s been 2 non Vic clubs win flags by under 15 points against tenant sides and one non vic true neutral GF?

Well yes if you choose to cherry pick your time period that starts directly after 6 flags to BL, PA, Syd and WC that ain't surprising.

Collingwood have 5 away games at the G? Ok…. You mean games against other MCG tenants where they don’t travel?

Correct, neutral games against other teams who also are very familiar with the MCG

There is no advantage to Collingwood when playing Melbourne or Carlton at the G.

You leave Melbourne twice in 10 weeks.

This week is Freo's 6th game at Optus in the last 8 weeks.

The Dockers run home, from Rd14 they get 7 of their last 11 at Optus...Pies only play 6 at the G in the same period.

Meanwhile, the real travelling team - the Hawks - finish with 6 of their last 10 outside Victoria and play just 3 MCG games.....but people still want to group the Hawks with Essendon who never travel??

Hawks fixture is basically the same as the SA teams, lots of short trips.

 

[demondavey]

This thread is done to death. There is Vic Bias, but its chiefly about poor states not having a Grand Final venue. Mostly the bias is big vs little clubs and AFL House running vanity projects vs reality.


...Collingwood pays Melbournes bills. Pay your own way and maybe your clubs opinions will matter, because currently Melbourne are a talent sink that begs us for Queens Birthday games. You're welcome.

We don't mind paying for the league, and we are not the only tent pole keeping a roof up over the Big Show (Eagles, Crows, Lions and the fake NSW clubs are important for the TV deals) but we are the biggest pole. It has been this way since 1897.

I don't want any clubs killed. You want a fair draw? Kill four weak VIC clubs including your club, and probably Power and GCS. The league is bloated with barely sustainable and frankly poorly run clubs living off the leagues dividend. The market would shrink but the remaining clubs would play better footy and be better run and with the dead wood cut there'd be less waste.

Keeping small clubs alive has a cost, an unfair fixture. Moaning that [club] plays [games] in [curated timeframe] is a waste of breath.

Stop whingeing.

You either go to fully privatised clubs and naturally kill the under performers (no issues with Melbourne, North and St Kilda getting the axe). You either do that or you run it the current way, but stop pretending you don’t have an advantage or neutered advantage when you constantly play in Melbourne and non vic clubs need to travel and don’t get to play GF away from Melbourne.

The best way to even things up is to not back end tenant team games at the G leading up to finals and to have the finals after the PF.

 

[demondavey]

Well yes if you choose to cherry pick your time period that starts directly after 6 flags to BL, PA, Syd and WC that ain't surprising.

Correct, neutral games against other teams who also are very familiar with the MCG

There is no advantage to Collingwood when playing Melbourne or Carlton at the G.

This week is Freo's 6th game at Optus in the last 8 weeks.

The Dockers run home, from Rd14 they get 7 of their last 11 at Optus...Pies only play 6 at the G in the same period.

Meanwhile, the real travelling team - the Hawks - finish with 6 of their last 10 outside Victoria and play just 3 MCG games.....

Cherry pick? 17 years isn’t a big enough sample size? Wow! That’s not cherry picking, it’s pure statistics through a really significant sample size.

 

[WilloTree]

Well yes if you choose to cherry pick your time period that starts directly after 6 flags to BL, PA, Syd and WC that ain't surprising.

Correct, neutral games against other teams who also are very familiar with the MCG

There is no advantage to Collingwood when playing Melbourne or Carlton at the G.

This week is Freo's 6th game at Optus in the last 8 weeks.

The Dockers run home, from Rd14 they get 7 of their last 11 at Optus...Pies only play 6 at the G in the same period.

Meanwhile, the real travelling team - the Hawks - finish with 6 of their last 10 outside Victoria and play just 3 MCG games.....but people still want to group the Hawks with Essendon who never travel??

Hawks fixture is basically the same as the SA teams, lots of short trips.

I read somewhere Collingwood have 17 games in their home state this year. Not sure is that's right. It would be easy to check though.

If that figure of 17 is correct, (plus finals) and a guaranteed home GF, Collingwood fans have no business being within 100ks of this thread.

 

[sr36]

More dopey fallacious claims
1.From your own list, two Marvel tenants are playing their home games at your home ground https://www.marvelstadium.com.au/tenant-clubs

2. What it is a result of is too many mendicant clubs in Victoria, who then voluntarily choose to play home games at alternate venues to attract additional revenue whilst maintaining a home ground advantage. These teams are not, as you ludicrously claimed them to be, away teams.

3. West Coast example might under different circumstances be interesting, if it wasn't for the fact that the sole explanation for this is that there are too many mendicant teams in Victoria

4. Let's do a little exercise to make you understand. When the team lists for Melbourne vs St Kilda were posted on Thursday night before the game in Alice, here are the 46 players ranked by career AFL games played at Trarger Park

Max Gawn 8
Christian Petracca 8
Christian Salem 7
Steven May 6
Jake Melsham 5
Jake Lever 5
Clayton Oliver 5
Bailey Fritsch 5
Ed Langfon 4
Kosi Pickett 4
Trent Rivers 4
Harrison Petty 3
Tom Sparrow 3
Jake Bowey 2
Kade Chandler 2
Judd McVee 2
Daniel Turner 1
Caleb Windsor 1
Five Melbourne players named playing their first AFL game there.

Dan Butler 1
Brad Hill 1
Zak Jones 1
Twenty Saints players named playing their first AFL game there

Melbourne are the home team
Melbourne are choosing to play there
Melbourne have far more familiarity with the ground
Advantage Melbourne

The point you're missing is that Melbourne don't sell a home game. They sell a Docklands game. One where they're either at a home ground disadvantage against a Docklands tenant or have already lost their home ground advantage against a Non-Vic tenant.

And it's not just the "mendicant" clubs trying to do it. Collingwood tried last year to sell their home ground disadvantage game against a Docklands tenant and Richmond are likely to do it to Tassie next year. Why wouldn't you?

 

[sr36]

Collingwood have 5 away games at the G? Ok…. You mean games against other MCG tenants where they don’t travel?

You leave Melbourne twice in 10 weeks.

Yep travelling less is an advantage of there being 10 clubs in the state. 10 clubs in the state also comes with extremely obvious disadvantages that Non-Vic fans don't want to acknowledge. The obsession with looking for excuses results in people only wanting to see disadvantages. But those advantages are so clear that the WA teams don't want a 3rd team in WA... I wonder why not...

 

[WilloTree]

Yep travelling less is an advantage of there being 10 clubs in the state. 10 clubs in the state also comes with extremely obvious disadvantages that Non-Vic fans don't want to acknowledge. The obsession with looking for excuses results in people only wanting to see disadvantages. But those advantages are so clear that the WA teams don't want a 3rd team in WA... I wonder why not...

WA Football Commission is open to a 3rd club. There's been discussions regarding Joondalup, Bunbury and there were even some initial hashing out of what a 'Northern' club would like like. Admittedly, this was under a different AFL CEO and didn't get very far due to the idea being instigated right at the tail end of his tenure. Unfortunatly old Gill had no interest in running with it.

As it currently stands thought its...actually, it's better if I just post from the WAFC CEO

WAFC CEO Michael Roberts clearly softened his language around the wealthy state’s willingness to take the 20th licence, telling Code Sports: “it’s positive that a third WA team is being spoken about ahead of potential options interstate.

“We need to make sure the clubs here in WA aren’t like some of the clubs in Victoria who are putting their hands out or struggling for members.

“We need to understand what is viable, and I think there’s still a lot of work to do to see if a third club would be supported here in WA.

“Any future arrangement would also require a review in how community football would be funded given the two local AFL clubs assist in funding local community football.

“We look forward to future discussions with the AFL and state government.”

 

[sr36]

WA Football Commission is open to a 3rd club. There's been discussions regarding Joondalup, Bunbury and there were even some initial hashing out of what a 'Northern' club would like like. Admittedly, this was under a different AFL CEO and didn't get very far due to the idea being instigated right at the tail end of his tenure. Unfortunatly old Gill had no interest in running with it.

As it currently stands thought its...actually, it's better if I just post from the WAFC CEO

WAFC CEO Michael Roberts clearly softened his language around the wealthy state’s willingness to take the 20th licence, telling Code Sports: “it’s positive that a third WA team is being spoken about ahead of potential options interstate.

“We need to make sure the clubs here in WA aren’t like some of the clubs in Victoria who are putting their hands out or struggling for members.

“We need to understand what is viable, and I think there’s still a lot of work to do to see if a third club would be supported here in WA.

“Any future arrangement would also require a review in how community football would be funded given the two local AFL clubs assist in funding local community football.

“We look forward to future discussions with the AFL and state government.”

You might be talking about non-current views? But regardless of whether the commission opposes it or not - having only 2 clubs in WA is clearly advantageous to the WA teams in a heap of ways - travel being the exception - and having 10 clubs in Vic is clearly disadvantageous to the Vic clubs in a heap of ways - with travel being the exception.

‘Madness’: WA footy chief quashes notion of third AFL team

West Australian Football Commission chair Wayne Martin has described a push for a third WA AFL team as ‘madness’.

thewest.com.au

 

[WilloTree]

You might be talking about non-current views? But regardless of whether the commission opposes it or not - having only 2 clubs in WA is clearly advantageous to the WA teams in a heap of ways - travel being the exception - and having 10 clubs in Vic is clearly disadvantageous to the Vic clubs in a heap of ways - with travel being the exception.

‘Madness’: WA footy chief quashes notion of third AFL team

West Australian Football Commission chair Wayne Martin has described a push for a third WA AFL team as ‘madness’.

thewest.com.au

Not non-current - two different. My quote is from July 16.

 

[kranky al]

if you eliminate two of the teams that play way more games in the mcg than their opponents and have won most of the recent grand finals, teams that play the mcg more than other teams don’t have much of an advantage over interstate clubs…….Also I am very smrt

Yes yes yes old chap.

I think it’s time for your morning nap, let’s just wipe your chin and change your nappy eh?

 

[kranky al]

You might be talking about non-current views? But regardless of whether the commission opposes it or not - having only 2 clubs in WA is clearly advantageous to the WA teams in a heap of ways - travel being the exception - and having 10 clubs in Vic is clearly disadvantageous to the Vic clubs in a heap of ways - with travel being the exception.

‘Madness’: WA footy chief quashes notion of third AFL team

West Australian Football Commission chair Wayne Martin has described a push for a third WA AFL team as ‘madness’.

thewest.com.au

https://archive.md/PhUzj

Depaywalled : that’s from two years ago.

https://archive.md/PhUzj

 

[Coolangatta]

You might be talking about non-current views? But regardless of whether the commission opposes it or not - having only 2 clubs in WA is clearly advantageous to the WA teams in a heap of ways - travel being the exception - and having 10 clubs in Vic is clearly disadvantageous to the Vic clubs in a heap of ways - with travel being the exception.

‘Madness’: WA footy chief quashes notion of third AFL team

West Australian Football Commission chair Wayne Martin has described a push for a third WA AFL team as ‘madness’.

thewest.com.au

Well, yeah, Blind Freddy can see that there’s too many teams in Victoria, but no one wants to do anything about it.

So, long may interstate clubs begin to reign.

I think the next Vic enquiry of interstate dominance will just lead to a Vic conference, though, it’ll always be looked at from a pro VFL lens.

 

[Carringbush2010]

What it is a result of is too many mendicant clubs in Victoria,

But those clubs aren't begging.

The league distributes them funds from the product, that ain't gonna change.

So, what to do now?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Stop whingeing.

Look in the mirror

 

[Carringbush2010]

like some of the clubs in Victoria who are putting their hands out or struggling for members.

Sorry Michael.

That is incorrect, clubs don't put their hand out, the league distributes funds from the product to ensure their survival, no need to 'put their hand out' and the lowest vic club member count is 50k at north - that is not struggling for members.

 

[WilloTree]

You might be talking about non-current views? But regardless of whether the commission opposes it or not - having only 2 clubs in WA is clearly advantageous to the WA teams in a heap of ways - travel being the exception - and having 10 clubs in Vic is clearly disadvantageous to the Vic clubs in a heap of ways - with travel being the exception.

‘Madness’: WA footy chief quashes notion of third AFL team

West Australian Football Commission chair Wayne Martin has described a push for a third WA AFL team as ‘madness’.

thewest.com.au

p.s wrong Chair. That article is from 2023. Current chair Ian Callaghan.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Well, yeah, Blind Freddy can see that there’s too many teams in Victoria, but no one wants to do anything about it.

So, long may interstate clubs begin to reign.

I think the next Vic enquiry of interstate dominance will just lead to a Vic conference, though, it’ll always be looked at from a pro VFL lens.

Ah yeah,

I've been saying this since I can't remember.

The 'pro vfl' bit WON'T change UNLESS there is a shift in the market i:e the vic market becomes smaller than another. Not likely anytime soon if ever.

So now what?

 

[kranky al]

But those clubs aren't begging.

The league distributes them funds from the product, that ain't gonna change.

So, what to do now?

When long established clubs are on a permadrip doubling their income compared to other clubs whilst selling games interstate…..



*Looks at thread title.


*Looks at the current reigning world champ of non sequiturs

*Looks at the thread title again

* Looks at :
that ain't gonna change.


*Looks at the current reigning world champ of non sequiturs

*Looking at the thread title intensifies….

*Notices ONCE AGAIN - aside from non sequiturs that “give up” is being used once again

 

[kranky al]

Ah yeah,

I've been saying this since I can't remember.

The 'pro vfl' bit WON'T change UNLESS there is a shift in the market i:e the vic market becomes smaller than another. Not likely anytime soon if ever.

So now what?

Give up post No #6578



Dude, no one cares about you saying give up. No one is listening to you. Nothing in this world ever got changed by giving up.