Why do people ignore how unfair the Grand Final location is

[telsor]

1. The point is 'revenue' shouldn't be prioritised ahead of fairness. It already is in my view with the 'draw' compromised - that's not in dispute.

So if you're cutting revenue, where are you going to cut spending?

2. True, a multiple game series is different to a one-off, but the point is the same. Name a league (other than the AFL or NRL) where the Grand Final is played at the home ground of one or more teams no matter what.

Name a league where about half the fans are in one place that doesn't hold the big games in that place.

3. This thread is full of people who have said, 'well interstate teams have a good record in GFs, therefore there is no advantage, it's a neutral ground' - So yes, some people have made such a ridiculous claim. There was a 78 point turnaround between the QF and the GF last year - anyone want to claim that none of that has to do with Hawthorn's ability at the 'G compared to WC's unfamiliarity at that ground? Despite finishing third, Hawthorn had a significant home ground advantage.

and it's a smaller advantage than would have been the case the other way around.

4. People in this thread have argued that a game shouldn't be held elsewhere because corporates or AFL members will be inconvenienced. It's in this thread, so I did not make up anything. Further, I was being sarcastic.

I've said things *like* that...and I don't care that they're inconvenienced. I do care about the tens of millions it would lose. As per my reply to your first point...If you're willing to lose that revenue, where are you going to cut spending?

5. Of course home ground advantage has an impact in the H&A - that's how leagues work!

and some teams have a bigger one....and you want to reinforce that advantage by ensuring that that advantage, which alreayy grants home finals also gives a home grand final.

The underlying issue is that having the GF at the home ground of four teams, no matter where they finish etc, is not fair. My view is that sporting leagues should prioritise fairness and unfortunately, the AFL is particularly bad at that. You can argue against the unfairness of the GF location on the basis of tradition, money for the AFL, capacity of the ground, logistics or whatever other nonsense you want, but the underlying fact remains.

The most neutral ground in the game, which is also the largest, in the center of a city with almost half the competitions fans, and makes the most money for the competition....Yes, there is a degree of unfairness in the home teams gaining an advantage, but given that the non local clubs had an easier run getting there, I think that's balanced out.

 

[XXRL]

So if you're cutting revenue, where are you going to cut spending?

Name a league where about half the fans are in one place that doesn't hold the big games in that place.

and it's a smaller advantage than would have been the case the other way around.

I've said things *like* that...and I don't care that they're inconvenienced. I do care about the tens of millions it would lose. As per my reply to your first point...If you're willing to lose that revenue, where are you going to cut spending?

and some teams have a bigger one....and you want to reinforce that advantage by ensuring that that advantage, which alreayy grants home finals also gives a home grand final.

The most neutral ground in the game, which is also the largest, in the center of a city with almost half the competitions fans, and makes the most money for the competition....Yes, there is a degree of unfairness in the home teams gaining an advantage, but given that the non local clubs had an easier run getting there, I think that's balanced out.

Thank you for acknowledging that there is unfairness embedded into a system that often gives one team home ground advantage even when they may finish lower on the ladder.

Mainly, your argument seems to be about revenue for the AFL - I argue that fairness should trump revenue in a fully professional, national competition.

The AFL's total revenue in 2015 was $494m. It is stated above that the AFL made $19m from the GF, which equates to 3.85% of the AFL's revenue. Let's assume they would only make about half as much profit if they held the GF at another venue, so let's take $10m away. A pretty big assumption I would've thought given they could charge more for tickets in a smaller venue. Anyway, with that assumption, the AFL would lose 2% of its total revenue - hardly about to send them bankrupt. Perhaps the argument about revenue was relevant once, but it is decreasingly important, particularly given the scale of TV rights deals.

As a football fan I care most about supporting my team under a fair system and it frustrates me no end that the AFL and its media sycophants have managed to convince everyone that somehow revenue for the AFL is the key metric when evaluating the AFL's whimsical decision making.

 

[Gibbke]

The new stadium should be good. Define 'spectacle'? Are you talking about helium balloons, streamers, bands etc? I mainly care about the game rather than the 'spectacle', but each to their own.

Good to know you put 'spectacle' ahead of fairness

It is fair. The best two teams can play anywhere, proven by the fact that interstaters have dominated Int v Vic GF's since they started (if you take out the ridiculously superior record of just one team - mine), and the fact that all interstaters who have made GF's have had exemplary travelling records in those seasons, meaning they basically don't need to give a f### about playing away - it's not an issue. You say a sample size of under 20 isn't enough to draw a conclusion, but no GF has been decided by home ground advantage, and you'll know all about that by simply watching the games and the seasons backing them up. Every single one of them - I was 17 when the Eagles and Bears entered the comp, seen the lot since. You can go through every single loss by an interstater without being able to make a strong enough case for reversal of result, the closest being Freo in 2013...and that one wasn't as close as Freo fans would like to think. Finals beforehand, particularly the elimination finals, yeah sure - but the home ground factor is aided by the notion that if you finish 8th, you're a shitter team than 7 others, 4 of whom you must beat to win the premiership. If you make it, you're on a roll, and by this time you've made up to a dozen plane flights anyway...

Spectacle - I went to the WC final at the MCG last year. I shudder to think what that would have been like if it was at the Gabba, dead match or not. Noone's talking streamers or bands, and noone's talking interactive screens on every seat, pretty flashing lights around the ground in your club colours, or sentient robots serving food in the corporate area. The simple vision of 100 000 people in a day match at a huge ground beats the crap out of a boutique stadium in Sydney or Qld, or an aging fossil in Perth soon to be replaced by a marginally bigger pretty one to match the one in Adelaide - both of which are less than 2/3 the size of the beast in Melbourne. That's it - that's all it needs. Big ground, big match.

 

[Gibbke]

2. True, a multiple game series is different to a one-off, but the point is the same. Name a league (other than the AFL or NRL) where the Grand Final is played at the home ground of one or more teams no matter what.
3. This thread is full of people who have said, 'well interstate teams have a good record in GFs, therefore there is no advantage, it's a neutral ground' - So yes, some people have made such a ridiculous claim. There was a 78 point turnaround between the QF and the GF last year - anyone want to claim that none of that has to do with Hawthorn's ability at the 'G compared to WC's unfamiliarity at that ground? Despite finishing third, Hawthorn had a significant home ground advantage.
4. People in this thread have argued that a game shouldn't be held elsewhere because corporates or AFL members will be inconvenienced. It's in this thread, so I did not make up anything. Further, I was being sarcastic.

2 - Name a league which has only one huge stadium and total access to it which is the home ground of participating clubs. It's not a huge number. I'm sure teams travelling from the top of England grumbled about the bus trip to play a London team at neutral Wembley in the FA Cup final way back in the day, but you'll be struggling to find others. Conversely, the NFL has never given a f### about stadium size since day one - it's all about corporates, tv and wining and dining Olympic style...
3) Pffft...Hawthorn belted the f### out of a team who didn't know how to do deciders and didn't turn up, and who have backed up that ambivalence with a season that has impressed no one, regardless of last Friday's result. The Hawks did that to another ambivalent interstater with a supposedly better team on paper in 2014 too (and beat them at their own home grounds during the season along the way as well)...
4) That's not the point. It's not about inconvenience to corporates and Vics, it's about the difficulty for the organisers in organising such a huge scale event. This is why the NFL announces its Superbowls years in advance - it's a tough ask. They also have the luxury of having a league full of state of the art, similar sized grounds as well. None of the "best of" finals series sports use huge stadiums, and none of them open their doors to huge numbers of neutrals and opposition spectators. The GF does all of this. You need to give these people time to get tickets and accommodation, and for businesses and the city to prepare, and only Melbourne can presently do the GF and tick every single box...

So when Perth or Adelaide have the facilities, sure, make a bid and get the match...until then, your reasoning is not founded in fact, just misguided righteousness, and no other place is up to the task...

 

[XXRL]

It is fair. The best two teams can play anywhere, proven by the fact that interstaters have dominated Int v Vic GF's since they started (if you take out the ridiculously superior record of just one team - mine), and the fact that all interstaters who have made GF's have had exemplary travelling records in those seasons, meaning they basically don't need to give a f### about playing away - it's not an issue. You say a sample size of under 20 isn't enough to draw a conclusion, but no GF has been decided by home ground advantage, and you'll know all about that by simply watching the games and the seasons backing them up. Every single one of them - I was 17 when the Eagles and Bears entered the comp, seen the lot since. You can go through every single loss by an interstater without being able to make a strong enough case for reversal of result, the closest being Freo in 2013...and that one wasn't as close as Freo fans would like to think. Finals beforehand, particularly the elimination finals, yeah sure - but the home ground factor is aided by the notion that if you finish 8th, you're a shitter team than 7 others, 4 of whom you must beat to win the premiership. If you make it, you're on a roll, and by this time you've made up to a dozen plane flights anyway...

Spectacle - I went to the WC final at the MCG last year. I shudder to think what that would have been like if it was at the Gabba, dead match or not. Noone's talking streamers or bands, and noone's talking interactive screens on every seat, pretty flashing lights around the ground in your club colours, or sentient robots serving food in the corporate area. The simple vision of 100 000 people in a day match at a huge ground beats the crap out of a boutique stadium in Sydney or Qld, or an aging fossil in Perth soon to be replaced by a marginally bigger pretty one to match the one in Adelaide - both of which are less than 2/3 the size of the beast in Melbourne. That's it - that's all it needs. Big ground, big match.

Why would a game between Hawthorn and WC be at the Gabba?

 

[XXRL]

2 - Name a league which has only one huge stadium and total access to it which is the home ground of participating clubs. It's not a huge number. I'm sure teams travelling from the top of England grumbled about the bus trip to play a London team at neutral Wembley in the FA Cup final way back in the day, but you'll be struggling to find others. Conversely, the NFL has never given a f### about stadium size since day one - it's all about corporates, tv and wining and dining Olympic style...
3) Pffft...Hawthorn belted the f### out of a team who didn't know how to do deciders and didn't turn up, and who have backed up that ambivalence with a season that has impressed no one, regardless of last Friday's result. The Hawks did that to another ambivalent interstater with a supposedly better team on paper in 2014 too (and beat them at their own home grounds during the season along the way as well)...
4) That's not the point. It's not about inconvenience to corporates and Vics, it's about the difficulty for the organisers in organising such a huge scale event. This is why the NFL announces its Superbowls years in advance - it's a tough ask. They also have the luxury of having a league full of state of the art, similar sized grounds as well. None of the "best of" finals series sports use huge stadiums, and none of them open their doors to huge numbers of neutrals and opposition spectators. The GF does all of this. You need to give these people time to get tickets and accommodation, and for businesses and the city to prepare, and only Melbourne can presently do the GF and tick every single box...

So when Perth or Adelaide have the facilities, sure, make a bid and get the match...until then, your reasoning is not founded in fact, just misguided righteousness, and no other place is up to the task...

Err, Wembley is neutral. Like actually neutral. Not "it's neutral because non-Victorian teams have won there before" neutral, but actually neutral.

If the FFA (the FFA FFS!) can organise a GF at the Adelaide Oval in a week, I'm not sure why the AFL wouldn't have the ability to do the same.....

 

[The_Wookie]

Err, Wembley is neutral. Like actually neutral. Not "it's neutral because non-Victorian teams have won there before" neutral, but actually neutral.

Victorians say that the MCG is relatively neutral because 7 of them play home games on the venue. There is no true home game advantage. Possibly irrelevant if a grand final is between a victorian club and a non victorian club though.

If the FFA (the FFA FFS!) can organise a GF at the Adelaide Oval in a week, I'm not sure why the AFL wouldn't have the ability to do the same.....

The FFA hasnt got a fraction of the corporate support the AFL has - only cricket comes close in Australia - and few other leagues have 65,000 of their own members to accommodate. Not to mention the thousands of other clubs who also get a certain number of seats at the grand final. Play it outside of Melbourne, or perhaps ANZ Stadium in Sydney, and locals are barely going to get a look in.

 

[Gibbke]

Why would a game between Hawthorn and WC be at the Gabba?

WC - World Cup cricket, not West Coast.

It depends on your preference as to how the game would be allocated. You seem to want the higher team getting home rights, while there is also a preference out there for a bidding system, or rotating through the venues, which means you'd know before the season started where the game would be. In this scenario, a Hawks v WC game could end up at the Gabba, if Qld won the bid - why not...? Bidding is how the Yanks do it...

Out of interest, all Int v Vic matchups, and the venue if it was a higher placed team system (going by highest prelim final qualifier), and then the likely winner if changed with thoughts:
1991 Hawks v WC at Waverley - Haw
1992 Cats v WC at MCG - WC
1994 WC v Cats at Subi - WC (WC too good)
1996 Syd v NM at SCG - NM (NM the best team that season, especially once they were up against finals virgins Sydney)
1997 StK v Adel at MCG - Adel
1998 NM v Adel at MCG - Adel
2001 Ess v Bris at MCG - Bris
2002 Bris v Coll at Gabba - Bris (Brisbane too good)
2003 Coll v Bris at MCG - Bris
2004-05-06 at FP, Subi and SA (Port probably, and who knows how the coin would have landed if they replayed those Syd v WC finals)
2007 Geel v Port at MCG - Geel
2012 Haw v Syd at MCG - Syd
2013 Haw v Freo at MCG - Haw
2014 Syd v Haw at SA - Haw (Hawthorn far superior on the day, and lots of wins in recent years in Sydney)
2015 WC v Haw at Subi - Haw (Hawks way too experienced, Eagles clueless handling a GF as they demonstrated).

So history would have given you 5 non-Vic hosted GF's with interstaters hosting Victorians, alongside 3 all-interstate GF's. Of those, 2 had already been won by the interstater, leaving three in contention, and all three in real life saw the better team win because they were the better team at the back end of September as expected, not because of the venue...

Also, only 1991 would have changed alongside the five above if the GF hosting rights were taken as of the ladder at the end of the H&A and not the PF's. Same story as 2015...

Conclusion - you guys have a bee in your bonnet over nothing. Regular finals, sure it's valid, and WC were robbed in 1990/96/99 until they fixed a s**t rule regarding MCG entitlements. But the big game just doesn't succumb to this. Sorry.

 

[Gibbke]

Err, Wembley is neutral. Like actually neutral. Not "it's neutral because non-Victorian teams have won there before" neutral, but actually neutral.

Reread. "Back in the day" refers to teams travelling on buses, unlike Man U who have their own plane, or even further back with horse drawn wagons in the 1800's...might have even been the odd steamer from Liverpool, who knows...

The FFA didn't organise their final in a week, either...it took longer...

 

[XXRL]

WC - World Cup cricket, not West Coast.

It depends on your preference as to how the game would be allocated. You seem to want the higher team getting home rights, while there is also a preference out there for a bidding system, or rotating through the venues, which means you'd know before the season started where the game would be. In this scenario, a Hawks v WC game could end up at the Gabba, if Qld won the bid - why not...? Bidding is how the Yanks do it...

Out of interest, all Int v Vic matchups, and the venue if it was a higher placed team system (going by highest prelim final qualifier), and then the likely winner if changed with thoughts:
1991 Hawks v WC at Waverley - Haw
1992 Cats v WC at MCG - WC
1994 WC v Cats at Subi - WC (WC too good)
1996 Syd v NM at SCG - NM (NM the best team that season, especially once they were up against finals virgins Sydney)
1997 StK v Adel at MCG - Adel
1998 NM v Adel at MCG - Adel
2001 Ess v Bris at MCG - Bris
2002 Bris v Coll at Gabba - Bris (Brisbane too good)
2003 Coll v Bris at MCG - Bris
2004-05-06 at FP, Subi and SA (Port probably, and who knows how the coin would have landed if they replayed those Syd v WC finals)
2007 Geel v Port at MCG - Geel
2012 Haw v Syd at MCG - Syd
2013 Haw v Freo at MCG - Haw
2014 Syd v Haw at SA - Haw (Hawthorn far superior on the day, and lots of wins in recent years in Sydney)
2015 WC v Haw at Subi - Haw (Hawks way too experienced, Eagles clueless handling a GF as they demonstrated).

So history would have given you 5 non-Vic hosted GF's with interstaters hosting Victorians, alongside 3 all-interstate GF's. Of those, 2 had already been won by the interstater, leaving three in contention, and all three in real life saw the better team win because they were the better team at the back end of September as expected, not because of the venue...

Also, only 1991 would have changed alongside the five above if the GF hosting rights were taken as of the ladder at the end of the H&A and not the PF's. Same story as 2015...

Conclusion - you guys have a bee in your bonnet over nothing. Regular finals, sure it's valid, and WC were robbed in 1990/96/99 until they fixed a s**t rule regarding MCG entitlements. But the big game just doesn't succumb to this. Sorry.

I'm actually not that bothered about history. Yes, it's good that the issues with Prelims etc has been resolved.

I've stated my views that I believe, for a truly national competition, based on fairness, the GF hosting rights should go to the highest placed team.

 

[blue harvest]

The AFL's total revenue in 2015 was $494m. It is stated above that the AFL made $19m from the GF, which equates to 3.85% of the AFL's revenue. Let's assume they would only make about half as much profit if they held the GF at another venue, so let's take $10m away. A pretty big assumption I would've thought given they could charge more for tickets in a smaller venue. Anyway, with that assumption, the AFL would lose 2% of its total revenue - hardly about to send them bankrupt. Perhaps the argument about revenue was relevant once, but it is decreasingly important, particularly given the scale of TV rights deals.

Your revenue calculations are far too simplistic.
If the GF wasn't at the G the AFL would have to cut the price of AFL membership or lose members. Approx 55K members at say $100 a pop there's at least another $5M. Also MCC would have to cut their price, people wait 40+ years on the restricted and full membership queue, paying every year, you think they're just going to accept the GF being taken away when there is a contract in place?
Each of the 18 clubs is also allocated something like 800 GF tickets with most of them being sold off in those $2K+ packages. At a smaller venue this couldn't be done. There's another $30M+ in lost revenue for clubs.

Then of course there is the issue that the MCC borrowed truckloads of money to help pay for the Southern and Northern redevelopments. They are still paying these loans off. They agreed to take on this debt on the understanding that the GF contract is in place for a long time., you can't just reneg on that deal without massive compensation.

 

[XXRL]

Your revenue calculations are far too simplistic.
If the GF wasn't at the G the AFL would have to cut the price of AFL membership or lose members. Approx 55K members at say $100 a pop there's at least another $5M. Also MCC would have to cut their price, people wait 40+ years on the restricted and full membership queue, paying every year, you think they're just going to accept the GF being taken away when there is a contract in place?
Each of the 18 clubs is also allocated something like 800 GF tickets with most of them being sold off in those $2K+ packages. At a smaller venue this couldn't be done. There's another $30M+ in lost revenue for clubs.

Then of course there is the issue that the MCC borrowed truckloads of money to help pay for the Southern and Northern redevelopments. They are still paying these loans off. They agreed to take on this debt on the understanding that the GF contract is in place for a long time., you can't just reneg on that deal without massive compensation.

Sure, it's all hypothetical anyway. Really the discussion needs to be at the conclusion of the current contract.

I disagree the AFL would need to cut the price of its membership, given there's about a 10 yr wait to get to Gold level as it is. Given the MCG would likely host at least 50 percent of GFs on average, do you really think people would leave in droves given they've taken 10 years to get to that level, and they'd be able to get GF tickets in other cities?

Secondly, the AFL might gain more members from outside Victoria which you haven't considered, which could lead to a net increase in revenue.

True, the clubs might be impacted by selling their packages - whether they aim to sell them in that last week or in some other way is something that would need to be considered.

Again, the MCC members would still get access to most of the GFs anyway, and we're talking quite a few years away given the current contract.

I did consider expanding the revenue discussion to include other issues but decided against it. Mainly, my argument is that the revenue issues can be overcome if the AFL was willing to prioritise fairness.

Given the increasing importance of broadcasting deals in sport, I maintain that, by the time the MCG contract expires, the revenue issues will be even less significant than they are now and if fairness is the main priority, then GF hosting rights should go to the highest placed team.

 

[Gibbke]

I'm actually not that bothered about history. Yes, it's good that the issues with Prelims etc has been resolved.

I've stated my views that I believe, for a truly national competition, based on fairness, the GF hosting rights should go to the highest placed team.

Anyone who ignores the history of any given topic, doesn't matter what it is, doesn't truly understand that topic...!

 

[XXRL]

Anyone who ignores the history of any given topic, doesn't matter what it is, doesn't truly understand that topic...!

Right. Okay. My point was this: I'm not bothered about the historical results of how interstate teams have performed in GFs at the MCG or whether that affected the outcome. Apparently reasonable historical performance of interstate teams in the GF means there's no issue. I reject that. I could have been more careful in my choice of wording

It's fallacious to assume that because things have been done a certain way for a long time, they should continue to be done in that way.

 

[telsor]

Thank you for acknowledging that there is unfairness embedded into a system that often gives one team home ground advantage even when they may finish lower on the ladder.

and I note you wont acknowledge that home ground advantage during the H&A means some teams (particularly non Vic ones) are more likely to finish higher.

Mainly, your argument seems to be about revenue for the AFL - I argue that fairness should trump revenue in a fully professional, national competition.

The AFL's total revenue in 2015 was $494m. It is stated above that the AFL made $19m from the GF, which equates to 3.85% of the AFL's revenue. Let's assume they would only make about half as much profit if they held the GF at another venue, so let's take $10m away. A pretty big assumption I would've thought given they could charge more for tickets in a smaller venue.

Given that they'd have to have all 9 possible grounds booked (not just for the day, but for the leadup to ensure the ground is in perfect condition) & the additional costs of moving things at the last minute, I think $10M/year is optimistic actually.

Anyway, with that assumption, the AFL would lose 2% of its total revenue - hardly about to send them bankrupt. Perhaps the argument about revenue was relevant once, but it is decreasingly important, particularly given the scale of TV rights deals.

Still needs to be offset by decreased spending...which you didn't mention.....Which development programs do you think should be cut?

As for TV, how do you think they'd like a Perth GF, especially as they also want it to be a night game? The East Coast is 90% of the market....A night game in Perth means it's too late, and they think a day game is less of a spectacle.

As a football fan I care most about supporting my team under a fair system and it frustrates me no end that the AFL and its media sycophants have managed to convince everyone that somehow revenue for the AFL is the key metric when evaluating the AFL's whimsical decision making.

Perhaps you should remember that not all unfairness is against your team then. Given your passion for fairness, I look forward to your proposals to reduce the advantages WA teams have.

 

[telsor]

Victorians say that the MCG is relatively neutral because 7 of them play home games on the venue. There is no true home game advantage. Possibly irrelevant if a grand final is between a victorian club and a non victorian club though.

That and the fact that away teams play there more often than they do any other ground (except perhaps docklands), reducing their disadvantage.

It's not neutral, but it's a smaller advantage than anywhere else.

 

[XXRL]

and I note you wont acknowledge that home ground advantage during the H&A means some teams (particularly non Vic ones) are more likely to finish higher.

I really don't understand this point. So WA teams have a high home ground advantage when they play in Perth, but they have a high away game disadvantage elsewhere.

Is your point because Melbourne teams play against each other, thereby negating their home ground advantage a few times per year? Genuinely curious.

Given that they'd have to have all 9 possible grounds booked (not just for the day, but for the leadup to ensure the ground is in perfect condition) & the additional costs of moving things at the last minute, I think $10M/year is optimistic actually.

The FFA can manage with the A-League. Presumably MLS can manage. Not sure why the AFL couldn't manage. And it wouldn't be at the last minute if it was the plan all along!

Still needs to be offset by decreased spending...which you didn't mention.....Which development programs do you think should be cut?

As for TV, how do you think they'd like a Perth GF, especially as they also want it to be a night game? The East Coast is 90% of the market....A night game in Perth means it's too late, and they think a day game is less of a spectacle.

We're talking so far into the future and as mentioned, it only accounts for a very small percentage of AFL total revenue.

I'm sure they can manage a Perth timezone like they do for all other games in Perth. Not sure what you're on about regarding 'spectacle' and why the timing can't work.

Perhaps you should remember that not all unfairness is against your team then. Given your passion for fairness, I look forward to your proposals to reduce the advantages WA teams have.

I acknowledge there are many inequities in the system and I would like to see less of them, absolutely. This thread is titled "why do people ignore how unfair the grand final location is?" so the discussion is primarily about that. I'm more than happy to hear what advantages WA teams have that need to be addressed... We can start by stopping the dream run the Eagles get from the umpires at Subi!

 

[telsor]

I really don't understand this point. So WA teams have a high home ground advantage when they play in Perth, but they have a high away game disadvantage elsewhere.

Is your point because Melbourne teams play against each other, thereby negating their home ground advantage a few times per year? Genuinely curious.

OK...Let's start with asking where do you think has a bigger home ground DISadvanatage? Kardinia park, or the MCG?
Why?

The FFA can manage with the A-League. Presumably MLS can manage. Not sure why the AFL couldn't manage. And it wouldn't be at the last minute if it was the plan all along!

A-League plays on grounds nobody else want to use though. (what is MLS?)

As for 'last minute'...When do you think they'd move all the extra TV equipment, concert gear, fireworks, promotional stuff (and yeah, people)? You can book out 9 grounds, but you're not going to have 9 sets of everything. We're talking a convoy of trucks sitting ready for the announcement and racing to the site (followed by hurried setup..lots of extra overtime/cost)

We're talking so far into the future and as mentioned, it only accounts for a very small percentage of AFL total revenue.

and yet you can't find that small % of savings...

I'm sure they can manage a Perth timezone like they do for all other games in Perth. Not sure what you're on about regarding 'spectacle' and why the timing can't work.

Yeah, they'd be fine with it...just like they're fine with all the Friday night games in Perth....

 

[XXRL]

A-League plays on grounds nobody else want to use though. (what is MLS?)

Major League Soccer in U.S.

Major League Baseball and the NBA also use such a system.

As for 'last minute'...When do you think they'd move all the extra TV equipment, concert gear, fireworks, promotional stuff (and yeah, people)? You can book out 9 grounds, but you're not going to have 9 sets of everything. We're talking a convoy of trucks sitting ready for the announcement and racing to the site (followed by hurried setup..lots of extra overtime/cost)

One week before there would only likely be two, max three possibilities of where the game would be held, not nine. I'm sure the logistics could be sorted.

 

[telsor]

Major League Soccer in U.S.

Major League Baseball and the NBA also use such a system.

And you don't see any difference between US sports and Australian?

For example...Do the US sports have half their audience in one city?

One week before there would only likely be two, max three possibilities of where the game would be held, not nine. I'm sure the logistics could be sorted.

Sure...If the choice is Perth or Brisbane, where do you put the trucks?
It CAN be done...but it'd cost a lot more, for a lesser result than having it in one place.


BTW..you ignored my question about home ground advantage....Where would you consider to be the bigger DISadvanatge...Kardinia park or MCG, and why?

 

[XXRL]

And you don't see any difference between US sports and Australian?

For example...Do the US sports have half their audience in one city?

Is it really half? Anyway, it seems to me that it is a strategic goal of the AFL to expand the audience beyond Victoria and beyond the traditional states, and one way to progress that strategic goal would be to allow the GF to be hosted by the highest placed team.

Sure...If the choice is Perth or Brisbane, where do you put the trucks?
It CAN be done...but it'd cost a lot more, for a lesser result than having it in one place.

Obvs you have the trucks in Alice, ready to go. Surely these things can be arranged - I'm sure channel 7 have access to lots of equipment. Equally, one could hire stages, fireworks, catering, whatever needs to be done.

BTW..you ignored my question about home ground advantage....Where would you consider to be the bigger DISadvanatge...Kardinia park or MCG, and why?

I would have thought that Geelong have a bigger home ground advantage at KP than at the MCG. That said, they've been pretty strong everywhere over the last ten years.

 

[telsor]

Is it really half? Anyway, it seems to me that it is a strategic goal of the AFL to expand the audience beyond Victoria and beyond the traditional states, and one way to progress that strategic goal would be to allow the GF to be hosted by the highest placed team.

Close enough...Going by Wookie's spreadsheet in the TV ratings thread, FTA Metro TV ratings are 49.26% Melbourne ( 45,954,000 total, 22,641,000) with Foxtel probably being higher in Vic (we don't get all home teams games on FTA).

Population wise is a lot trickier, obviously Vic is 'only' about a quarter of the national population, but when you look at the AFL fanbase, well by the heartland, Vic is comfortably bigger than WA, SA, Tas & NT combined (by about 900k), so if there are around a million fans in NSW, QLD & ACT, it would, once again, be close to 50%.

The strategic goal is to expand the game, and that means NSW/QLD....Playing a GF in Perth would do little if anything for that, indeed, given the timezones, it would probably be worse (you like your US sports analogies, it'd be like playing the superbowl in Hawaii in terms of being away from the bulk of the market).

Obvs you have the trucks in Alice, ready to go. Surely these things can be arranged - I'm sure channel 7 have access to lots of equipment. Equally, one could hire stages, fireworks, catering, whatever needs to be done.

Do you really think all that stuff would be sure to be available on short notice? (and all the legal stuff...governments tend to like permits for such things). As I've mentioned before, I have a couple of friends who run an events management company...They've been prepping for the GF since the last one ended (well, whenever their contract was renewed anyway) and a lot of stuff has been customised accordingly....They can't just hire it all on a few days notice.

There is also the problem of the people...To get anyone decent, you need to book them well ahead...which is fine for the top people...book them regardless and fly them in (although they'd cost a bucketload more because they'd need to spend ages prepping a bunch of places, most of which they wouldn't use). Even the rank and file people would be a problem though...The people who do sound, lights, etc. I know a bunch of people who do those things, and there are really 2 groups...Those who are good enough they need to be booked well ahead, and those who have day jobs and thus need to be booked well ahead. I'm sure you could bring together the required numbers, but you'd really be hiring anyone who was available, so quality would be awful. (you'd end up with situations like where I ended up acting in a relatively big role in a short film because I was available....and trust me, it wasn't pretty).

I would have thought that Geelong have a bigger home ground advantage at KP than at the MCG. That said, they've been pretty strong everywhere over the last ten years.

Absolutely...which is why Freo complained so much about having to play a final there...They were unfamiliar with the ground, so the advantage was bigger. It's also why non Vic clubs complain about playing in Tassie (etc)...They want more games at the G to build up that familiarity.

So when Richmond plays Freo at Subi (or Sydney at SCG, or Port at AO) for what is likely to be their only trip to that city in a given year, and Freo plays Richmond at the MCG on one of their 5(?) trips to Melbourne and 2 or 3 at the MCG, which club do you think has the bigger advantage (all else being equal)?

So to return to the point...Given that non Vic clubs have a bigger home ground advantage in the H&A and are thus more likely to finish higher on the ladder, giving the GF to the highest team merely reinforces that advantage.

In 100m sprint terms...You get a 2m head start in the heats, and for 'fairness' want that 2m head start given to heat winners in the finals because the alternative is that some other teams might get a 1m start on you (if they get there).

 

[Colonial]

That and the fact that away teams play there more often than they do any other ground (except perhaps docklands), reducing their disadvantage.

It's not neutral, but it's a smaller advantage than anywhere else.

Giants played at MCG once.

 

[craigvn123]

It may move from the G, but this would be announced when fixtures are released.

I would like to see a 12 year rotating schedule to start. 6 in Melb, 2 in Adel, 2 in Perth, 1 in Syd, 1 in Brisb. The lower crowd size can be made up by having higher engagement with corporates outside of Vic.

 

[telsor]

Giants played at MCG once.

So worst case, they're still in a better boat that the 10 clubs who haven't played at Spotless in terms of which venue would be fairer.