-
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Expansion Why the National comp can never be national
- Thread starter Carringbush2010
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Jul 13, 2015
- 36,511
- 40,695
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Wembley is the best stadium in the UK. The MCG is the best stadium in Australia.
In the US the Super Bowl stadiums must meet certain minimum standards of which capacity is one.
Only Olympic Park comes close at 85,000.
The MCG was massively upgraded and part of the reason was the guarantee to host the GF for a few decades. All the interstate stadia are able to push for the new contract when it comes up for renewal.
Build bigger stadia or shut up.
Yep.
Except that Wembley is a neutral stadium with no regular season games played there (except special circumstances like Spurs this year only)
And also that the Superbowl has a minimum of 70K and is moved around the country well in advance. That figure can include temporary seating specifically for the game, so Adelaide Oval could probably meet that with the entire northern area available.
As it stands, Adelaide Oval has more chance of hosting a Superbowl than an AFL Grand Final.
- Jul 13, 2015
- 36,511
- 40,695
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Its maybe 15 or 20 years til the contract is up. Start planning now.
The AFL always chases the money.
Always.
Agreed.
Like i say, AFL is an entertainment vehicle first and foremost.
- Jul 13, 2015
- 36,511
- 40,695
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Its a money making opportunity for the big wigs first. Then entertainment.
Bunch of whingers in this thread. The fact is we are playing in an expanded VFL comp and the Grand Final has always been played at the MCG and that's where it belongs. If the Eagles won their Premierships in front of 44,000 people at Subiaco Oval they wouldn't count for s**t in my eyes, the trip to the MCG to play in the grand final is like a holy pilgrimage to the Mecca of footy, to defeat the Vics on their own sacred turf and take their Premiership Cup from their bloody hands and hear the lamentations of their women. Victory at the MCG makes it all the more sweeter for interstate sides.
Garry Barry
Senior List
- Aug 27, 2017
- 166
- 148
- AFL Club
- GWS
A grand final series is the answer. Best of 3. 1st MCG. 2nd home of highest qualifier (Adelaide oval). 3rd (optional) at highest bidder.
Bound to happen eventually.
- Feb 12, 2010
- 4,113
- 7,656
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Adelaide United, Leeds, Bohemians
They've copied almost everything American. Now it's down to whether they go Superbowl or the NBA finals series.
- Thread starter
- #135
Just thought I'd bring the conversation back to this thread, seems the linked thread has taken up debate on this particular subject.
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...ranked-team-playing-away-gf-solution.1178558/
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...ranked-team-playing-away-gf-solution.1178558/
caloschwaby
Whisper
- Jan 3, 2017
- 4,854
- 6,477
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Celtics, Renegades, Packers
It's a bit weird talking about this.
We can discuss it all we like as to what is the best option but the reality is that it will never eventuate and that sort of makes me annoyed.
We can discuss it all we like as to what is the best option but the reality is that it will never eventuate and that sort of makes me annoyed.
- Thread starter
- #137
Once again, other threads have been taken up with this particular conversation, these two come to mind of recent.
Time to bump this thread again. I like a good stoush! kranky al FreeTK
www.bigfooty.com
www.bigfooty.com
I'll start off with the misnomer that HQ are Vic centric and point out why the popular belief is a misnomer.
As Gil is South Australian why would he be "vic" bias? There are also members on the board of the AFL who are not Victorian - are they vic biased too?
Although it may "seem" "they're against us" then why would HQ even have anything outside state comps?
It's not because they're "against" non vic clubs, it's because the bulk of the market is in vic and support vic clubs.
I still maintain as much as some would view it as a national comp, it is not. And we cannot possibly have one.
Time to bump this thread again. I like a good stoush! kranky al FreeTK
MCG tenants on Grand Final day
4/4 top 4 teams interstate 2019 4/4 top four teams from 2019 in 2020 the definition of a neutral venue is one where neither team is a tenant. 70000 km to be flown in 2020 vs richmond 14406 I have to ask. Other than whinge on bigfooty what have you done about the issue? written to the club...
www.bigfooty.com
Alternative fixture idea
Enlighten me!!! Effectively the MCC wanted Collingwood at the G, they went, PFs were no longer locked it to the G. Its a bit more complicated because the AFL were involved, but Eddie made it happen IMHO.
www.bigfooty.com
I'll start off with the misnomer that HQ are Vic centric and point out why the popular belief is a misnomer.
- The comp is "vic biased" because HQ doesn't truly want a national comp
As Gil is South Australian why would he be "vic" bias? There are also members on the board of the AFL who are not Victorian - are they vic biased too?
Although it may "seem" "they're against us" then why would HQ even have anything outside state comps?
It's not because they're "against" non vic clubs, it's because the bulk of the market is in vic and support vic clubs.
I still maintain as much as some would view it as a national comp, it is not. And we cannot possibly have one.
Last edited:
If NSW takes to footy, gets the support like Vic has, things will change, but i can't see much change until then.Once again, other threads have been taken up with this particular conversation, these two come to mind of recent.
Time to bump this thread again. I like a good stoush! kranky al FreeTK
MCG tenants on Grand Final day
4/4 top 4 teams interstate 2019 4/4 top four teams from 2019 in 2020 the definition of a neutral venue is one where neither team is a tenant. 70000 km to be flown in 2020 vs richmond 14406 I have to ask. Other than whinge on bigfooty what have you done about the issue? written to the club...
Alternative fixture idea
Enlighten me!!! Effectively the MCC wanted Collingwood at the G, they went, PFs were no longer locked it to the G. Its a bit more complicated because the AFL were involved, but Eddie made it happen IMHO.
I'll start off with the misnomer that HQ are Vic centric and point out why the popular belief is a misnomer.
If this was actually true then why bother with pushing the game in rl states like nsw & qld? Why bother adding teams like gc and gws in a long long haul attempt to garner support for them? Why give Cola to teams with higher residential expenses? Why would HQ bother with pushing a game in China? Why would HQ bother with pushing games in NZ or India?
- The comp is "vic biased" because HQ doesn't truly want a national comp
As Gil is South Australian why would he be "vic" bias? There are also members on the board of the AFL who are not Victorian - are they vic biased too?
Although it may "seem" "they're against us" then why would HQ even have anything outside state comps?
It's not because they're "against" non vic clubs, it's because the bulk of the market is in vic and support vic clubs.
I still maintain as much as some would view it as a national comp, it is not. And we cannot possibly have one.
Lol. Are you guys that stupid? It's about money. It's always about money. The move into NSW and Queensland is to make more and more money in the long term. The whole comp is designed to propagate and promote the big 5 or 6 Victorian sides. The other 3 or 4 are used to prop up the bigger ones and know not to step out of line because they can't afford to and are just happy to still have a seat at the big table.
It is true the AFL don't mind Sydney doing well because they covet the money and acceptance from Australia's most important city, but outside of that they just want the "interstate" sides doing well enough to keep rolling up and paying their money but not really contending. Despite all this West Coast have risen to be the biggest and richest club in the country. Will be interesting to see whether the AFL move to curb them in the near future. Maybe they are happy with one "interstate" bogeyman?
It is true the AFL don't mind Sydney doing well because they covet the money and acceptance from Australia's most important city, but outside of that they just want the "interstate" sides doing well enough to keep rolling up and paying their money but not really contending. Despite all this West Coast have risen to be the biggest and richest club in the country. Will be interesting to see whether the AFL move to curb them in the near future. Maybe they are happy with one "interstate" bogeyman?
Yeah you're right, Gil would hate it if a SA side did well.
We whinge about the inequities because they are obvious and in your face, if the AFL were to just dump on every team we would not be bothered. When you see the Premiership team play 7 games in a row at their home ground and belt the opposition in the GF you can't help but think this show is rigged. I know if we got the same crap each year that we normally do and Richmond got to play their last 5 games away the whinging stops.
Gill is the head of a Victorian institution, hugely important to the Victorian Government, business, economy, self worth and psyche. He knows where his bread is buttered.
Probably the same reason interstate sides joined a Vic comp.
- Thread starter
- #144
I'll be old and in a home by the time that comes to pass - if it ever does.
- Thread starter
- #145
Of course it's about money, that's why HQ want to grow the game. Without sustained support from the public in the rl states then they're not going to make as much money as they would wish would they?
So no, the posters you're referring to aren't stupid (I'm assuming you think I'm one of the stupid), you're just not seeing the big picture.
In an ideal world the AFL would like an even spread of clubs and travel across the country i:e a fair and equitable national comp and for the code to be number 1 in the nation i:e have the highest interest from the public - so they can make more money.
Games in rl states generate tv ratings because footy fans watch it not rl fans. They want to somehow entice rl fans to favour footy over rl
to generate more attendance in the stands and on the couch i:e more money.What we have now is not the ideal, what we have now is dictated by the market. Not because of some sort ridiculous belief in "vic bias"
The bulk of the market is in Vic, and this is why every non vic fan gets their nose out of joint - it doesn't favour their clubs or state.
There is no better alternative unless we go back to state leagues.
It's why the national comp can never be truly national.
- Thread starter
- #146
So he's not vic biased then, he's money biased. Just like the comp has been since semi professionalism.
- Sep 15, 2011
- 31,616
- 48,107
- AFL Club
- West Coast
There is an alternative, it’s called forward thinking. There is more money to be made in the long term from an equitable national competition. You seem to be arguing that the AFL would/should chase the maximum Vic dollars today and become equitable only when there is just as much cash to be made from outside Vic. Alternatively, creating an equitable competition may actually hasten the addition of fans outside Vic and more money overall.Of course it's about money, that's why HQ want to grow the game. Without sustained support from the public in the rl states then they're not going to make as much money as they would wish would they?
So no, the posters you're referring to aren't stupid (I'm assuming you think I'm one of the stupid), you're just not seeing the big picture.
In an ideal world the AFL would like an even spread of clubs and travel across the country i:e a fair and equitable national comp and for the code to be number 1 in the nation i:e have the highest interest from the public - so they can make more money.
Games in rl states generate tv ratings because footy fans watch it not rl fans. They want to somehow entice rl fans to favour footy over rl
What we have now is not the ideal, what we have now is dictated by the market. Not because of some sort ridiculous belief in "vic bias"
The bulk of the market is in Vic, and this is why every non vic fan gets their nose out of joint - it doesn't favour their clubs or state.
There is no better alternative unless we go back to state leagues.
It's why the national comp can never be truly national.
Many a business has lost out in the long run chasing short term dollars. An example of this is the terribly shortsighted decision to lock the grand final in at the MCG for 50 years just to get some cash upfront in the way of upgrades.
Everything is run from a centralised Victorian perspective. If you can't see that you are blind. I get why we are here, I understand the reasons, but to argue it's not is sheer stupidity. Why are you bothering? Your club is at the pointiest point of it. You benefit from it more than anyone. Again I ask, why do you bother? Just enjoy it.
- Thread starter
- #149
I'm not arguing they should or would I'm arguing they are already. Thought that was pretty evident, given the bulk of the teams are centralised in one state.
I'd agree IF and WHEN the population outside of vic outstrips vic, currently the vic population is larger than all other footy states and territories combined and likely always has been and by more than a million people.
And that's why we don't have an equitable national comp - it's catered to the bulk of the market.
This has nothing to do with short term dollars, even more pronounced chasing $$ in rl states in seeming futility - that's long term stuff right there.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #150
I can see you're not comprehending what I would've thought was plain and simple.
Of course it's run from a Victorian perspective, it has since day dot and I've mentioned that since the OP.
I'm explaining the (what should be obvious) WHY!
WHY do I bother? I posted that in the bump post just today. It is because most non vic posters on here and other forums have this petulant childish belief that HQ is only there to create misery for them - support vic purely because vic. Which is just rubbish.
And I don't mind if you and others continue with the salt, that's for my and others enjoyment. I'm merely pointing out the obvious so if the toys are thrown I can just point out the facts.
Pretty simple stuff I would've thought.
Similar threads
