Mega Thread VICBias - Genuine Discussion

[taurus]

The Feeder Club, no one is going to take equalisation of fixtures seriously if you are going to continue with axing/merging Vic clubs as a solution.

That's a far fetched idea that would be laughed out of any boardroom!

Someone posted a good and nuanced point that the fixture will never be equal so let's consider sane ideas. Three Derby games sound like a sensible idea. It's a bit like 'series' in a normal baseball season. 'home' team for the third game is who ever wins the previous year's 'series'.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

THey don't actually have the power to do what you're asking for.

I am not sure what the AFL constitution says but yiu could simply put in place you must totally be able to fund yourself and if you can’t then you need to play in a league you can.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

That these types of conversations are even taking place just shows what an unprofessional deeply flawed league has been developed. It’s actually laughable our biggest sport operates such a poorly run league.

 

[sr36]

I am not sure what the AFL constitution says but yiu could simply put in place you must totally be able to fund yourself and if you can’t then you need to play in a league you can.

The clubs own the AFL - not the other way around. If the AFL attempted to revoke licenses without club consent - shit would hit the fan big time.

 

[The Feeder Club]

It's cute that the boosters of the Vic centric status quo continue to push this idea that the AFL.is set up like the UN Security Council, with every club and its members having the right to veto the decisions of the commission.

It's incorrect

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23750472.2023.2195405#:~:text=The%20AFL's%20governance%20structure%20(see,the%20traditional%20corporate%20governance%20model.

The key passage of the article, for those that can't be bothered to read it all, refers to clause 27b of the AFL constitution which says any decision of the commission to suspend or terminate a club must be ratified at a general meeting of AFL on a vote by simple majority of all AFL appointees.

There's no veto. Whilst clubs own the AFL, the power lies with the commission, not the clubs

 

[JackOutback]

I’ll say it again …it’s a Victorian league with invited guests and if you don’t like it then go back and barrack for Sth Fremantle.

And this here is the attitude that underpins ‘Vicbias’. Another way to look at it is the VFL staved off bankruptcy by seeking to go national, then kinda just abandoned that and made a half-arsed effort instead.

There is still a VFL, this is the AFL, all efforts must be made to make it a national competition, not a Victorian one with ‘invited guests’.

 

[sr36]

It's cute that the boosters of the Vic centric status quo continue to push this idea that the AFL.is set up like the UN Security Council, with every club and its members having the right to veto the decisions of the commission.

It's incorrect

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23750472.2023.2195405#:~:text=The%20AFL's%20governance%20structure%20(see,the%20traditional%20corporate%20governance%20model.

The key passage of the article, for those that can't be bothered to read it all, refers to clause 27b of the AFL constitution which says any decision of the commission to suspend or terminate a club must be ratified at a general meeting of AFL on a vote by simple majority of all AFL appointees.

There's no veto. Whilst clubs own the AFL, the power lies with the commission, not the clubs

You haven't read it properly. The appointees are appointees of the clubs. There needs to be a majority of support from the clubs to suspend a club's licence to participate in the AFL.

And even if they got majority support it would go to court and likely lose unless there was a bloody good reason for the club to be stripped of its licence.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

You haven't read it properly. The appointees are appointees of the clubs. There needs to be a majority of support from the clubs to suspend a club's licence to participate in the AFL.

And even if they got majority support it would go to court and likely lose unless there was a bloody good reason for the club to be stripped of its licence.

How did that work out for Fitzroy?

 

[Coasters7]

I’ll say it again …it’s a Victorian league with invited guests and if you don’t like it then go back and barrack for Sth Fremantle.

This is not what it is at all. It’s a merged league because it was all going **** up at the time. The VFL, WAFL and SANFL all still exist and the AFL isn’t (or shouldn’t be) any of those. It’s a national comp and the fixture and equalisation should reflect that.

 

[The Feeder Club]

You haven't read it properly. The appointees are appointees of the clubs. There needs to be a majority of support from the clubs to suspend a club's licence to participate in the AFL.

And even if they got majority support it would go to court and likely lose unless there was a bloody good reason for the club to be stripped of its licence.

Yes a simple majority (10/18) of appointees would have to ratify getting rid of a club. Totally different to the claim that has been made on here that individual clubs and their members would have to agree before they could be booted out. I assume you agree that isn't the case and there's no veto power?
I do agree with you it would end up in court being challenged.

 

[Shane Heard]

And this here is the attitude that underpins ‘Vicbias’. Another way to look at it is the VFL staved off bankruptcy by seeking to go national, then kinda just abandoned that and made a half-arsed effort instead.

There is still a VFL, this is the AFL, all efforts must be made to make it a national competition, not a Victorian one with ‘invited guests’.

“ all efforts must be made…”

 

[Shane Heard]

This is not what it is at all. It’s a merged league because it was all going **** up at the time. The VFL, WAFL and SANFL all still exist and the AFL isn’t (or shouldn’t be) any of those. It’s a national comp and the fixture and equalisation should reflect that.

 

[Shane Heard]

That these types of conversations are even taking place just shows what an unprofessional deeply flawed league has been developed. It’s actually laughable our biggest sport operates such a poorly run league.

Meanwhile…the only fans who get their knickers in a twist about it all are non Victorian club fans.



The other 10% like you and your mates spend countless sleepless nights tormented.

It’s a fruitless endeavour.

Give it up. For your own piece of mind.

Be more like Sydney Swans supporters. Enjoy the challenge of slaying the vics and don’t complain if you’re not.

 

[Woolly Mammoth]

And this here is the attitude that underpins ‘Vicbias’. Another way to look at it is the VFL staved off bankruptcy by seeking to go national, then kinda just abandoned that and made a half-arsed effort instead.

There is still a VFL, this is the AFL, all efforts must be made to make it a national competition, not a Victorian one with ‘invited guests’.

I feel like this is a good opportunity to get back to some kind of summarization of the key points of this thread that has somehow swelled out to 367 pages and mostly gone around in maddeningly pointless circles.

*The current VFL is the old VFA rebranded. The current AFL is the old VFL rebranded (this fact should be pinned to the top of each page) I get this is a tad confusing, but at the same time it's not exactly Pythagorean theorem.

*What efforts should be made exactly to make this 'more of a' national comp, how do these efforts achieve this goal, and are they realistic (i.e worth talking about for the next 20 years?) ?

 

[sr36]

Yes a simple majority (10/18) of appointees would have to ratify getting rid of a club. Totally different to the claim that has been made on here that individual clubs and their members would have to agree before they could be booted out. I assume you agree that isn't the case and there's no veto power?
I do agree with you it would end up in court being challenged.

Also totally different to your claim that the commission would do it if they had any courage. There's no way theyd get 10 votes to chop the league down to 12 clubs. They had a crack at merging and relocating Vic clubs, but needed consent of the club and only got it with South Melbourne and Fitzroy. Nearly got a couple of other mergers across, but they fell over.

You're stuck with 10 Vic clubs. It's not even a discussion anymore where it counts. Particularly as the broadcasters want and are contracted to get 9 rather than 6 games a week.

 

[sr36]

And this here is the attitude that underpins ‘Vicbias’. Another way to look at it is the VFL staved off bankruptcy by seeking to go national, then kinda just abandoned that and made a half-arsed effort instead.

There is still a VFL, this is the AFL, all efforts must be made to make it a national competition, not a Victorian one with ‘invited guests’.

It's a club based comp with teams in various states and it's a really even competition. You guys seem desperate to turn it into a state based comp with all the carry on as though the Vic clubs are all one unit. Be careful what you wish for. It wouldn't be an even competition if it was state rather than club based.

And while I'm on this. The MCG has been Melbourne's home ground for over 120. Years and Richmond's for the last 60. For the first 100 years of that it was an away venue for Collingwood, Carlton, Hawthorn, etc... Vic teams have lost more Grand finals to a home team at the MCG whilst it was an away venue for us than the non Vic teams have. And we lost those grannys without carrying on and complaining - because it's the biggest, best, most iconic ground in the league situated in the parklands where the game was invented. It's the spiritual heart of the game - where the grand final belongs.

 

[The Feeder Club]

Also totally different to your claim that the commission would do it if they had any courage. There's no way theyd get 10 votes to chop the league down to 12 clubs. They had a crack at merging and relocating Vic clubs, but needed consent of the club and only got it with South Melbourne and Fitzroy. Nearly got a couple of other mergers across, but they fell over.

You're stuck with 10 Vic clubs. It's not even a discussion anymore where it counts. Particularly as the broadcasters want and are contracted to get 9 rather than 6 games a week.

I do congratulate you on repetitively moving the goalposts of the discussion.

This started by me saying what I think should be done to yield a fairer national competition.

Your reply said it can't be done, they don't have the power.

Now I have shown you it can be done and they do have the power, you're telling me okay but it won't be done.

We'll see. I hope for and am confident in predicting that the current structure of the AFL with half the teams being legacies of a suburban league based in one city is unsustainable and will be dead within the next twenty years. It will either adapt and make the changes needed from within, or there will be some sort of franchise super league that emerges and cannibalises it.

You hope and are confident that won't happen I gather. All fine. As I said, we'll have to wait and see and in the interim disagree on the desirability of it

 

[sr36]

I do congratulate you on repetitively moving the goalposts of the discussion.

This started by me saying what I think should be done to yield a fairer national competition.

Your reply said it can't be done, they don't have the power.

Now I have shown you it can be done and they do have the power, you're telling me okay but it won't be done.

We'll see. I hope for and am confident in predicting that the current structure of the AFL with half the teams being legacies of a suburban league based in one city is unsustainable and will be dead within the next twenty years. It will either adapt and make the changes needed from within, or there will be some sort of franchise super league that emerges and cannibalises it.

You hope and are confident that won't happen I gather. All fine. As I said, we'll have to wait and see and in the interim disagree on the desirability of it

The AFL commission need the clubs to ratify it. The clubs won't ratify it. And if they did, it'd go to court and "we want WCE to travel less" wouldn't cut the mustard as grounds to strip a licence.

So no they don't have the power. All they have the power to do in terms of removing clubs is to put it forward to the clubs who would then vote against it.

The bolded just suggests you live in a state where shock jocks try to flame your outrage as they know it sells and you're lapping up their schtick. And have been sucked in by confirmation bias.

The league has never been stronger.

 

[Fabab]

feeder club wants 12 team comp wow,so kill 8 victorian based clubs .
Just you and wce play the wafl teams home and away ,flying issue solved and no vic bias.

 

[sr36]

I do congratulate you on repetitively moving the goalposts of the discussion.

This started by me saying what I think should be done to yield a fairer national competition.

Your reply said it can't be done, they don't have the power.

Now I have shown you it can be done and they do have the power, you're telling me okay but it won't be done.

We'll see. I hope for and am confident in predicting that the current structure of the AFL with half the teams being legacies of a suburban league based in one city is unsustainable and will be dead within the next twenty years. It will either adapt and make the changes needed from within, or there will be some sort of franchise super league that emerges and cannibalises it.

You hope and are confident that won't happen I gather. All fine. As I said, we'll have to wait and see and in the interim disagree on the desirability of it

Oh and do you want to know how stupid your suggestion was. A 12 team comp with 6 Vic teams, 2 in WA, 2 in SA, 1 in NSW, 1 in Qld (like you suggested) would result in Freo and Collingwood travelling the same amount that they currently do. And if it moved to true home and away, it would result in a few of the Vic teams travelling less than they currently do....

 

[RonnieRaven]

Why so many premiers, why so many brownlow medalists, there must be drugs involved if travel is so bad.

Are you talking about Fyfe who has never played a full season of football because of injury in part from interrupted recovery from travel.

 

[amazingjoshy]

West Coast get how many teams have to fly in a plane for 4 hours to play them every year?

We only get two at best.

If you want bias look up the Eagles historical home ground free kick stats, it would make Joel Selwood blush with the charity they’ve received. Give me that any day over any VIC Bias

You get that WC and Freo do the same flight their opponents do every week for home games (just earlier in the week)

 

[sr36]

You get that WC and Freo do the same flight their opponents do every week for home games (just earlier in the week)

You get that since wce joined the AFL, Hawthorn is the only club that has been more successful than them.

A couple of bad years and all of a sudden they're all in on victim mode.

 

[Roylion]

How did that work out for Fitzroy?

The administrator of Fitzroy voluntarily surrendered Fitzroy’s licence in return for financial support from the AFL to settle Fitzroy’s debts.

 

[RonnieRaven]

Of course extra travel is a disadvantage, but let me know when cricket basketball and soccer turn their home and away comp into a home, home away comp to reduce travel for a WA team, and then I'll start to belieits a vicbias thing. What do other sporting comps around the world do for clubs from cities that have go travel further? Pretty sure it's nothing - anywhere.

And the disadvantage is being dramatically exaggerated.

Let us know all the sporting organisations that don’t play their final on a neutral ground or home and away finals series